Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales

Question

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

Legacy section

I don't quite understand why a discussion of Diana's mental health is part of the legacy section, whether it's a quotation from Diana herself or from a biographer. Can anyone enlighten me? ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

@ChiHistoryeditor I have also been thinking about it for a while. Maybe we should remove it from "Legacy" and add it to "Problems and separation" section? Keivan.f^Talk 07:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That seems like a better place for it. ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, now the mention of Tina Brown's biography and its negative opinions on Diana seems out of place! ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

@ChiHistoryeditor Can you please tell me which part do you mean exactly? The paragraph that I changed its place is sourced by Sally Bedell Smith and Sarah Bradford's books. So I think you mean another part. Keivan.f^Talk 14:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to this: "In 2007, Tina Brown wrote a biography about Diana as "restless and demanding ... obsessed with her public image" and also a "spiteful, manipulative, media-savvy neurotic". Brown also claims Diana married Charles for his power and had a romantic relationship with Dodi Fayed to anger the royal family, with no intention of marrying him.[224]" Those quotations have nothing to do with her legacy. ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course these are just negative statements. Are they worthy to keep? Keivan.f^Talk 07:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@ChiHistoryeditor Yes. You're right. The second part of this paragraph which refers to her relationship with Dodi Fayed can be moved to "Personal life after divorce" section. I don't know what to do with the first part. Any idea? Keivan.f^Talk 07:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'd delete them. I don't think they add anything to the entry; they are just the negative opinions of one writer (I'm not a fan of Tina Brown's book). But I didn't want to just remove them without discussion as I realize other editors might think they are significant. ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

So, I decided to "be bold" and went ahead and removed the comments in the Legacy section as noted above. After reading/re-visiting it many times and without any counter-arguments offered , I think the comments were irrelevant to Diana's legacy.ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Borderline personality disorder

[1] "The combination of all of the illnesses from which Diana herself said that suffered resulted in many of her biographers agreeing that she had Borderline Personality Disorder". One author and "several unnamed people" doing armchair amateur psychoanalysis is not exactly a high quality diagnosis. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Srbernadette, can you please comment on your synthesis instead of simply reverting? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi You will find that I myself am not saying that Diana had BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder). I am recording that numerous journalists have - over several years - said that psychiatrists believe that she had it. These biographers include Junor, Dimbleby, Smith and Tina Brown. Please note that many biographers say that Hitler was an evil guy - many writers say that Hitler was a great guy. Both sides are referenced in Hitler's wikipeadia article. Pleas see notability and reliablie sources and also neutrality. Hope that helps. All the best Srbernadette

@Srbernadette: I put in quotes exactly what you said: "many of her biographers". You need a source for that, not a cherry picked list of names. See WP:SYNTHESIS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Diana Spencer

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

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?" RunnyAmiga ※ talk 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. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 September 2016

Diana, Princess of Wales → Princess Diana – WP: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)

• Support. Who thinks of her as being "of Wales"? Here she is in her natural habitat at People Magazine: "The Shocking Death of Princess Diana, 19 Years Ago Today." Here is her obit in the New York Times: "Princess Diana, Who Was Beloved, Yet Troubled by Her Crown". The light bringer (talk) 01:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would not be a WP:CONSISTENT move at all, and it is not even close to being an obscure name for her (as that NY Times article uses it despite the title). Also, there is some debate over whether the term is even correct, since (AFAIK) she was not born a royal, and thus "Princess Diana" is technically incorrect. Best not to create a single exception to WP:NCROY. Nohomersryan (talk) 06:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current title meets all the criteria of Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia should not perpetuate incorrect forms. DrKay (talk) 06:59, 3 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."[2] The light bringer (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)