Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Diana, Princess of Wales is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
February 8, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
March 27, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted
August 8, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Question[edit]

Wasn't Diana a vegetarian? Why isn't that mentioned? In modern times, that is a relavent political statement. It is an identity. She was also responsible for unforgettable banquets such as the 17-course meatless dinner served by the British Embassy during her first visit to the United States in her honor.

To further illustrate this point, she also annoyed the Royal Family by not paricipating in hunting events. She made it clear to her wardrobe designers that fur could not be used even as decoration on her clothes.

Her stance on animal rights and her vegetarianism should at least be mentioned.

Sources: Diana is vegetarian. http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/diana/readingroom/8191/11_11.html

Diana Spencer[edit]

The previous Princesses of Wales are listed by their maiden names in their page (Mary of Teck, Alexandra of Denmark, et al). Obviously, this is the first time this has happened in the computer age, so I was wondering at what point Diana's page should revert to her maiden name. Or should it at all? I think that there should be some consistency either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.248.156.50 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand the concern, and as you said, this situation is unique.
There are a few factors at work here. Mary of Teck and Alexandra of Denmark both went on to be queen consort while Diana did not, but other POWs whose husbands died without gaining the throne (Joan of Kent and Augusta of Saxe-Gotha) became Dowager Princesses of Wales.
Diana held the title Princess Charles of Wales while married and her divorce created a unique situation - Dowager POW was not appropriate. While it is often said that she was styled (but not titled) Diana, Princess of Wales, in fact the press release from Buckingham Palace said that she was styled and titled Diana, Princess of Wales. Her HRH was removed, and the original word from Buckham was that she was Lady Diana, Princess of Wales (quite correct, as she was a Lady by birth). So Diana held the unique position of being titled Princess of Wales though she was not married to the Prince of Wales.
Where does that leave us? Pretty much nowhere. Since this situation is unique there is no rule or precedent to apply. My personal opinion is that her page should eventually be revert to her maiden name and title, Lady Diana Spencer. We do have precedent for waiting, as has been done in the case of Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, whose page is still named in the style and title she held when she died - Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother.
I checked some other pages such as Princess Grace of Monaco, whose page is named Grace Kelly. She of course was well known before she married. As far as I can tell, those royal brides who were dead pre-Wikipedia are named by their maiden names; those who have died since Wikipedia came into being are not. The page of Alice Montagu Douglas Scott, for example, is still named Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. This is as close to a "policy" as I can find. But at some point in the future, maybe as far as a generation from now, this question will need to be revisited. History Lunatic (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)History Lunatic

Thanks for responding. I was wondering if there was a Wikipedia wide policy for this or not. At first, I was leaning towards the traditional historical Diana Spencer, but I'm thinking now that is pretty sexist. After all, George VI didn't revert to Prince Albert when he died.So maybe it's better to leave things as they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.248.156.50 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Henry vs. Harry[edit]

Do we need to somehow protect the use of Henry in this article or add a permanent note that Harry is a diminutive of the prince's actual name? Many seem to think it's simply a typo for Harry and with good intentions "fix" it. ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@ChiHistoryeditor: It's not really appropriate having the link read just [[Prince Henry of Wales]] because that's not the name of the article. Why not use [[Prince Harry|Prince Henry of Wales]] to avoid the redirect and add a hidden note asking people to stop changing "Henry" to "Harry?" RunnyAmigatalk 21:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to any specific edit--just the general pattern that Henry is inevitably "corrected" to read Harry. An article title that contains "Harry" should not be changed to Henry.ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
@ChiHistoryeditor: My concern was that I tweaked the link to direct it straight to his article's actual name and you undid that edit with a summary reading "Edit was incorrect" but no explanation of what about the edit was incorrect. It was probably per WP:NOTBROKEN, and if that's the case then I'll concede my edit wasn't appropriate, but I don't understand why we're calling him Henry in the first place. I'm assuming there's an emphasis on formality for infoboxes like this but it's still profoundly unhelpful. A vast majority of people who know this person by a name most certainly do not know him as Henry. I'd be happy to add a hidden note asking people to stop changing it to "Harry" but again, I don't understand why it's a problem. RunnyAmigatalk 22:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 September 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)



Diana, Princess of WalesPrincess DianaWP:COMMONNAME, per this Ngram. Despite the mention of the current title in WP:OBE #2, the rest of the same paragraph allows for the new title: "If a cognomen or maiden name is clearly most commonly used for the subject, and is unambiguous, use it for the title". juju (hajime! | waza) 23:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It does not meet WP:OBE #2 nor WP:COMMONNAME. "Princess Diana" is clearly the more common and recognizable name. juju (hajime! | waza) 08:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. A completely pointless move. The current title is accurate, and perfectly easy to find. Mezigue (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • If "Princess Diana" is technically an incorrect title, as other users have noted, then there's no basis for a move, especially since Princess Diana already redirects to this article. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nohomersryan. JAGUAR  19:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose – a redirect is good enough, IMHO. Moving the article would not be WP:CONSISTENT with other royalty. The current title is more accurate and more encyclopedic than the proposed title. Britannica list her as Diana, princess of Wales, so I would support lower-casing the p in Princesses, but other than that, I am an opposed. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 19:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • No, it shouldn't be lower-cased, since it's a title. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I am fine with uppercase or lowercase p. Really does not make a difference to me. CookieMonster755 𝚨-𝛀 19:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
        • Of course it should be lowercased. Job titles are lower cased unless they immediate precede the name or substitute for a name. See WP:JOBTITLES. Here is the Chicago Manual of Style. The light bringer (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
          • The third bullet point there disagrees with you. Nohomersryan (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
          • The third point just restates the second point. The example given is wrong -- and not relevant even if it was correct. Any published style guide will tell you to lower case. See the CMOS link I gave above. Columbia Encyclopedia also lower cases "princess."[1] The light bringer (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I agree with Nohomersryan. --Editor FIN (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible miscarriage?[edit]

There was previously a discussion on this talk page [2] over a possible miscarriage by Diana which was mentioned in an article by Daily Mail, which of course cannot be considered a reliable source for such biographical materials. But now I've read somewhere that in a book titled "Diana vs. Charles: Royal Blood Feud" by author and journalist James Whitaker it's stated that Diana suffered a miscarriage while on holiday with the royal family at Balmoral Castle in September 1983. Can it be considered a reliable source? Has it been mentioned on any other source? Keivan.fTalk 08:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Fermoy in the lead[edit]

The fourth baron Fermoy is not mentioned anywhere in the article, except in the drop-down pedigree chart at the bottom. Therefore, he is not important enough for the second sentence of the lead. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Celia Homeford That's not even a solid reason. So because he hasn't been mentioned anywhere else he shouldn't be mentioned on the lead paragraph. According to which rule may I ask? Check Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, for example, her grandparent's name is mentioned exactly after her mother's name. But I don't suggest removing it, because you may start an edit war over there too. Keivan.fTalk 12:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Please restrict your comments to the article topic. There is no need to keep pinging me, I have this page watchlisted. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
As long as I know there's no obstacle in notifying a user of a message that has been posted under the discussion section that he has started. Anyway, according to the "Manual of Style" we should "provide an accessible overview". In this case, as we're talking about a royal figure, her ancestry and background are of top importance. So I don't see any reason that why we shouldn't include her grandfather's name who was of a noble family himself. Keivan.fTalk 12:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm a woman. The Manual of Style says "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic ... information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Celia Homeford (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I know that you're a woman, but with respect, as I was stating something general I thought it would be preferable to use "he". About the lead paragraph you clearly pointed out that the information should be already covered in the remainder of the article in order to be added in the introduction. I think the solution would be probably including one sentence about her maternal ancestry in "Early life" just like Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and Mary of Teck (which are featured articles); then it would subsequently make the addition possible. Actually the introduction must be expanded as its size doesn't match the length of the article. If you have any constructive ideas, share them, or if you think you're able to expand the lead paragraphs, please do it. Keivan.fTalk 12:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)