Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Birth Place and residence growing up.

Dianna was not born nor raised in Park house, Cardiff. This is in Wales. The Park house is an actual house in Sandringham, Norfolk. If you read the citation it plainly states this information. She would not be the queens neighbor if she lived in Cardiff, Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.148.29 (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed.  Badgernet  ₪  09:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture at the Top

OK, Diana is one of the most beautiful and photogenic women ever to walk the Earth, and what do we have at the top? How many pictures have been taken of Diana, and we get one that makes her look like a 75-year-old woman with the worst hair dresser in the world. Please, can we find one of the other amazing pictures of this woman, rather than arguably her worst one ever? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.171.12 (talk) 04:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, she was a beautiful woman. However, with copyright laws here at Wikipedia we can't use just any image. It has to be strictly licensed to use under the Wiki Commons. If you can find a better one on Flickr, or have one of your own go ahead and add it. Until then, the main image stays. The problem with Princess Diana is the fact that if people have pictures of her, they're not going to release them under free licenses because they would be worth a significant amount of money. HorrorFan121 (talk) 09:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
The cropped version was better, at least it didn't show so many people in the background.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Two Pictures of Tunnel

Is it necessary to have two different pictures of the same tunnel, with both having essentially the same caption? If they both contribute something unique to the article, that is fine, but otherwise I feel like it is not helpful in the least, and somewhat unprofessional.

-Kanogul (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

bulimia

Why doesn't this article mention her bulimia struggles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.21.15.206 (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Locked?

This article, which is about a very famed woman, should it not me locked? I haved noted that articles such as Marie Antoinette, Lady Gaga, Madonna, are all protected... should this one not be to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.252.74 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Editor, Today I tried to write some more valuable information related to Lady Diana's Death. That may be either removed or I have done some mistake. I am new to WP Please shed some lite on my Information that can be shared by WP or not. Please guide me after reading the information.

The Information Is As Under:

Lady Diana Accident or a Planned Murder People all over the world knows that "The Lady Diana" was having an affair with Dody. How the Dody was planted with Lady Diana ? How they both were killed in France ?

If you see the Hindi Language (Hindi is the Language of INDIA) film "SHAN". In a shot Amitabh Bachchan and Praveen Bobby robed a diamond necklace from a Hotel and runaway in a car they were followed by POLICE (In Marathi Language people pronounced POLICE as पोळीचे or पोलिसे) This is the same way the french people call Police (This says the location of couple in France) when Amitabh Bachchan was stopped at the dead end (Dead End means Death) now at the end Police came and about to tell something, before Police Personnel says some thing Amitabh Bachchan Starts telling them something like this :- I am the the son of FOOL CHAND (Fool means Flower). Before becoming a flower the bud comes first (BUD Means in Hindi DODI) and the man dodi was planted with Lady Diana who was killed in the road accident along with Lady Diana. This the same DODI Which J.L Nehru used to of wearing on his Sherwani. J.L Nehru and Prince Charle's shares the same date of birth but the year is different. Dodi is the conversion of TODI, what Indian's were used to, to call English People when they were here in India till 15th of Aug.1947. The Full name was TODI BACHCHA (Not Bachchan). The Indians abused the English People as Basted by saying TODI BACHCHA They Planned this for Queen of England and brought forward the DODI up-to Lady Diana. Because of Strong Family Values the Indian's could not succeed it for Queen Mother also because of Lady Diana's affection towards the poor and needy people, the Dodi AL FRAYED be able to come up-to Lady Diana.

There are much more films which tells about International and National Incidents and Other Activities like :- Song :- Tauba-Tauba - stands for Lashkar - e Tauba. A terrorist organisation. it's a Hindu and Indian Organisation.

Thanks, Regards, --SHEENUASHISH (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, and WP:RS. Your proposed edit violates these guidelines and policies. --NeilN talk to me 14:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Biographical film about Lady Diana

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: "Caught on the fly", the title is a biopic about the late Princess Diana who began recording in Opatija, Croatia. The film will be shown the last two years Lady Diana before her tragic death in a car crash in Paris 1997th year. The focus of the film is a princess's secret love affair with the doctor Hasnatom Khan. Diana played by Australian Naomi Wats, and Dr. Khan Naveen Andrews, director Oliver Hirschbiegel. 93.137.42.0 (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Lady Diana? Who is she and what connection does she have to Diana, Princess of Wales? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 19:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Same person. Lady Diana redirects back to Diana, Princess of Wales. David1217 What I've done 19:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Egyptian Order of the Virtues

In the Honours - Foreign Honours - section, the link to the Egyptian "Order of the Virtues" points to the article Order_of_the_Virtues, which is about a liturgical drama composed in the 12th century. Please change the link to point to the article Order_of_the_Virtues_(Egypt), which is about the Egyptian order. 79.75.87.132 (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Funeral

I have always wondered about the standard (of Wales, presumably) draped over her coffin during the funeral procession. I would have guessed a non-royal would not be permitted that particular embellishment, but I am not an authority. Given that Diana was the first non-royal princess in English history, was there a protocol touching on this matter? 168.166.54.11 (talk) 21:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

  • No, there wasn't, and no, she wasn't. Deb (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Diana was NOT a Princess. When she was married to the Prince of Wales, she had the courtesy title of Princess of Wales, or Princess Charles, but she was NEVER Princess Diana. She was, at the time of her death, Diana, Princess of Wales, which was purely a courtesy title to show that she was the former wife of the Prince of Wales. 2.219.203.7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure if I agree, at least not while she was married to Charles anyway. I'm sure I've seen her officially referenced as Princess Diana by the Palace. That should be taken as definitive. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is not Princess Catherine at the moment, but she will become so once William becomes Prince of Wales. Camilla is technically Camilla, Princess of Wales too, though out of respect for Diana she doesn't use the title. The debate is what title Diana would have held if Charles had become King during their marriage as I've heard everything from retaining Princess to becoming Queen Consort. So is 2.219etc suggesting that Diana remained a commoner during her marriage? Hogwash. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
        • No, you have definitely never heard her referred to by the Palace as Princess Diana. And no one can know what title she might have taken if she had remained married to Charles - at the time of their separation, the prime minister suggested that she would still become queen and it's difficult to see how anything else could have happened without the divorce. Deb (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Miscarriage

According to this article in today's Daily Mail, Diana had a miscarriage between William and Harry. This should be noted, I think. I did a Google search and apparently it is mentioned in some of her biographies. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Discovered the identity of the mysteroius "boyfriend" Diana Spencer

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: These days the media around the world write about photography of Princess Diana and her boyfriend, refused to publish the greatest British tabloids, and where you can see it in the lap of a young man reading a book, and next to them there is a bottle of whiskey. The photograph in big letters indicated that they should not publish, which is the reason for this public interest, otherwise not very interesting or shocking images. Lady Di's biographer Andrew Morton claims that the young man from the photo Adam Russell, grandson of former British Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin. By Morton opinion Russell and Diana Spencer were filmed in the Swiss ski resort 1979th or the 1980th year on the day when they were both injured, so they're not gone skiing with the rest of society. He reportedly showed interest in her, but according to the Croatian daily Jutarnji list, among them nothing happened. Diana shortly after married Prince Charles. 78.3.208.186 (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable secondary source for this? And is this early and apparently fleeting relationship, if authentic, actually worth mentioning in this article? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

The lead image has been nominated for deletion on commons. See [1]. DrKiernan (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Education section - vague (redundant?) sentence

In a paragraph that otherwise comprehensively lists her places of education, is the rather vague looking sentence, between that mentioning her being sent to Riddlesworth Hall and that mentioning a move to West Heath Girls' School, that reads: "While she was young, she attended a [unnamed] local public school." (Its last two words linked to article Public school (United Kingdom).) This sentence would benefit from an indication of what/where the school was, and her ages at time (or date). If it is an old sentence referring to a school later named in the paragraph, then this sentence is redundant and could be removed.Cloptonson (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC) (function () { 

   if (window.MathJax)
       return;
   
   StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
       StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(makeAwesome)
   });
   
   $("").text(".where-is-my-cursor { display: inline-block; /* width: 1px; height: 1px*/ }" +
                                       ".wmd-preview.shrunk {overflow-y: auto; max-height:500px} " +
                                       ".wmd-preview.shrunk pre {max-height:350px} " +
                                       ".no-max-height, .no-max-height * { max-height: none !important; } "                                         
                                       ).appendTo("head");


   function makeAwesome(editor, postfix) {
       postfix = postfix || "";
       var jPreview = $("#wmd-preview" + postfix),
           jInput = $("#wmd-input" + postfix);
       jPreview.addClass("shrunk not-on-top not-on-bottom");

       var converter = editor.getConverter();
       
       var cachedSource, cachedHtml;
       
       function realHtml(markdown) {
           if (cachedSource !== markdown) {
               cachedHtml = converter.makeHtml(markdown)
               cachedSource = markdown;
           }
           return cachedHtml;
       }
       
       function positionForCharacter(charPos) {
           var markdown = jInput[0].value || "",
               markdownBeforeCursor = markdown.substring(0, charPos),
               markdownAfterCursor = markdown.substring(charPos);
               
           var real = realHtml(markdown),
               broken = converter.makeHtml(markdownBeforeCursor + ">" + markdownAfterCursor),
               len = real.length,
               i, lastTagPos;
               
           for (var i = 0; i ", lastTagPos),
               tag = real.substring(lastTagPos, tagEnd), // excluding the ">"
               htmlAfterTag = real.substring(tagEnd), // including the ">"
               html, created = false;
           
           if (/^" + tag;
               html = htmlBeforeTag + tag + htmlAfterTag;
               created = true;
           } else {
               html = real.substring(0, i) + "" + real.substring(i);
               created = true;
           }
           $(".no-max-height").remove();
           var jClone = $("

").css({ 

               height: 1,
               visibility: "hidden",
               position: "absolute",
               overflowY: jPreview[0].scrollHeight !== jPreview[0].clientHeight ? "scroll" : "hidden" // if the preview has a scrollbar, we need one here as well
           }).insertAfter(jPreview).html(html);
           
           jClone.html(html);

           jTarget = jClone.find(".where-is-my-cursor");
               
           if (!jTarget.length)
               return;
           var targetOffset = jTarget.offset(),
               cloneOffset = jClone.offset();
               
           return {
               left: targetOffset.left - cloneOffset.left,
               top: targetOffset.top - cloneOffset.top
           };
       }
       
       function characterFromPosition(x, y) {
           var left = 0,
               right = (jInput[0].value || "").length,
               center, thisPos, distSquared,
               best = center, bestDist = 1e20;
               
               
               
           while (left  distSquared) {
                   best = center;
                   bestDist = distSquared;
               }
               
               if (dy  8)
                   right = center;
               else if (dx  5)
                   right = center;
               else // this shouldn't happen
                   return best;
           }
           return best;
       }
       
       function displayBlock() {
           return $(this).css("display") === "block";
       }
       
       function normalizePosition(evt) {
           var x = evt.pageX - jPreview.offset().left + jPreview.scrollLeft(),
               y = evt.pageY - jPreview.offset().top + jPreview.scrollTop(),
               topLevel;
               
           // at this point, x and y are relative to jPreview
           
           $(evt.target).parentsUntil(jPreview).andSelf().filter(displayBlock).each(function (idx, elem) {
               topLevel = elem;
               var jElem = $(elem);
               x += jElem.scrollLeft();
               y += jElem.scrollTop();
           });
           
           $(topLevel).prevAll().find("*").andSelf().filter(displayBlock).each(function (idx, elem) {
               y += elem.scrollHeight - elem.clientHeight;
           });
           
           return { x: x, y: y };
           
       }
       
       function scrollToNormalizedPoint(x, y) {
           var result;
           
           jPreview.find("*").filter(displayBlock).each(function (idx, elem) {
               var jElem = $(elem);
               
               var elemPos = jElem.offset().top - jPreview.offset().top + jPreview.scrollTop();
               
               if (y

Armenian ancestry edit war

For the life of me I can't understand how this edit war came about. Both sides seem to be making wild leaps of faith. One minute Diana's ancestor is negroid, the next she is indisputably Armenian. Neither proposition is strongly supported by the references. I suggest the wording be left as it is now, which at least does not commit to her being of any specific ethnic origin - because we just don't know! Deb (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

funeral cortege photo

The original image
File:Diana funeral.jpg
The manipulated image

This is utter rubbish - it's a crap manipulated iamge. it doesn't show what it says it does accurately, there's no gun carriage, the flag's wrong, it's got cut and paste all over it.

It ought to look like this

http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/3689391.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.207.66 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. It's actually this image File:Diana's funeral.jpg with the backs of people's heads airbrushed out. DrKiernan (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted to 94.200.207.66 (talk) revision. Well spotted. Jschnur (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Now I understand. Sorry for reverting your edits.Keivan.fTalk 16:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No worriesCypselos (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Since then I have managed to get the duplicate deleted. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 12:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

precedence

I know this is a moot point, but I believe Diana was always third in official precedence during her lifetime, after the Queen and Queen Mother. And also I believe it was known that the Princess Royal and the Princess Margaret alos refused to curtsey to her because she was not of royal rank from birth. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The second point is rather insane. Princess Margaret's own mother was of exactly the same rank as Diana. And while I'm not sure, I'd have thought that there's no way Diana would have ranked ahead of actual princesses after her divorce - I'd have guessed that she'd probably have ranked just ahead of the duchesses, but I can't say I have any real idea. john k (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sure that Anne and Margaret wouldn't have wanted to curtsey to anyone if they could avoid it. However, I agree that it seems unlikely Diana would have taken precedence after her divorce. Whatever the case, it must have been an unprecedented arrangement (sorry about the pun), and quite possibly any record of it will not be easy to find.Deb (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, this was quite easy to find, for what it's worth. According to the announcement issued by the press secretary to the Queen shortly before the divorce, Diana was to be "accorded the precedence she enjoys at present" (prior to the divorce). That seems to confirm that she was only outranked by her mother-in-law and grandmother-in-law. Surtsicna (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I only raised the point b/c of the minor publicity around Camilla reportedly being given private precedence after the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra (or something like that). That's why it's notable Diana was officially always third, though the Princess Royal refused b/c they didn't get along, and the Princess Margaret b/c as the daughter of a King, sister of a Queen, she thought she was as close to God as could be gotten on this Earth, and only curtsied (at least in private) to her sister and mother. Apparently the Countess of Snowdon looked down upon Queen Mary because she was a born HSH while Margaret was HRH. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The announcement does only say that the precedence applies on state and public occasions, and I don't think she attended many of those after the divorce. As for Queen Mary, I just can't imagine anyone getting one up on her! She was in any case Margaret's gran, and I doubt the question arose very often. Deb (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

security post-divorce

"It is noted that Fayed's large security presence and compound posed no alarm to the Royal Protection Squad" Diana, Princess of Wales didn't have a Royal Protection Squad after her divorce, thusly how could they object? It's been speculated that if she had, she may not have died. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Was Indian descent proved or indicated?

IMO, the use of the word "proved" when reporting the origin of the mtDNA carried by Diana is journalistic hype. If the journalist was cross-examined in court, would they have actually proved that Diana's matrilineal line originated in India? Probably not. All that has been satisfactorily demonstrated is that most of the carriers of that mtDNA that have been identified are Indian. There is no indication as to when the matrilineal ancestors of these people migrated to India. That is why I used the words "indicated" and "probably" when I originally posed references to this story. I would like to see these words reinstated. Martinvl (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. 'Proof' is a very high standard, and mtDNA testing can only ever provide indications. This story [2] from the BBC 3 months ago indicates how unreliable some of these services are. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
It was me that reverted that change back in while I was dealing with some vandalism. In all honesty, I wasn't sure whether to or not, but since leaving it there was the status quo, that's what I did. The Pending Changes system, whilst useful, does sometimes cause that sort of dilemma. I'm glad you opened a discussion. I don't disagree with anything you have said here, and I'd personally be perfectly happy for you to change it as you describe - in fact I now favour that. Editors disagreeing could then join this discussion if necessary. Sorry if my confusion has caused further confusion. Begoon talk 13:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I changed it a few minutes ago. I also left a comment that the word "proved" was journalistic hype. I also removed the bit about her being a "Bombay housekeeper" - the word "housekeeper" is a euphemism for all sorts of relationships anything from employee to common-law wife. Martinvl (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, and your edit looks good to me. I'll stick with my first instinct next time. Begoon talk 13:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
As stated here, there is no "proof" that she was of either Armenian or Indian descent but the documents which are usually found. This recent article http://abcnews.go.com/News/princess-dianas-hidden-ancestral-secret-revealed/story?id=19401903 states that she was partially Armenian AND Indian, therefore I suggest to leave proof that she was of "South Asian descent", as Armenians and Indians alike can share mtDNA, not being so far off. --Vitilsky (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Indian/Asian ancestry

"DNA tests published in June 2013 on two distant cousins of Diana, Robin Dewhurst and Sarah Drury, who shared the same matrilineal ancestry as Diana indicated that Eliza Kewark was of Indian descent."

Re the above sentence which I am about to tag as dubious, the claim in the source cited, and the media reports about it, as well as other publicised claims by the same company have been discredited as being driven by commercial motives. Here are just a few quotes:

The Times's Prince William splash linked to readers' offer, Roy Greenslade, The Guardian
"IT’S IN THE GENES: Tempted by an unlikely tale about one of Prince William’s forebears, the papers swallow yet more scientific hokum on genetic ancestry." Private Eye's Street of Shame
Are there ethical lapses in the Times' story on William's "Indian ancestry"?, Alex Hern, New Statesman
"Public attention is the life-blood of any commercial company and IrelandsDNA is no different. Technically speaking, it is one of the most advanced genealogical DNA-testing outfits in Europe, and shouldn’t need to attract customers by associating itself with such theories." (IrelandsDNA is a commercial DNA testing company also trading as ScotlandsDNA and BritainsDNA.) No evidence of genocide, John Grenham, Irish Times HelenOnline 11:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Private Eye elaborated on the claim's scientific validity:

"Balding told the Eye this latest 'research' about Prince William had 'never been published or peer-reviewed and is not scientifically proven'. William's ancestor Eliza Kewark is usually described in historic documents as Armenian, and living in India. So to test whether she was from India and not Armenia, researchers would require a large enough sample from both countries to see whether her DNA is only found in India and is absent in Armenia. From the scant details available, it seems this was never addressed."

(Professor David Balding quoted is a geneticist from University College London.) HelenOnline 12:13, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the sentence and removed the tag. HelenOnline 16:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

My new find on the Princess' ancestry

I found out that Diana is related to seaman Francis Drake through his grandnephew John, who I refer to in this post as "17th Century Winston". I found it out from my tracing her ancestry through various articles of her ancestors here on Wikipedia. Here is the ancestry line...

The Princess------>

And she is related to John Churchill, so I skipped to him:

John--->17th Century Winston--->John Drake, of Mount Drake & Ashe--->Bernard--->Francis

I tried to integrate this into the Ancestry tab of the Princess' page, but my "Revision 568415217" was deleted by Helen...

I proved the line all on my own and through various Wikipedia lookups.

How can I reintegrate this into the Ancestry tab? Can anyone help me with this? I'd appreciate it. —User:LucilleBall (talk), 01:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.63.58.251 (talk)

You need to find external reliable sources that make that connection explicitly and cite them in your edit. "I proved the line all on my own" indicates we are talking about publishing original research which is not allowed on Wikipedia, and using "various Wikipedia lookups" as sources is also not allowed on Wikipedia. HelenOnline 07:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I also removed your unsourced edit to Bernard Drake. HelenOnline 07:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Lady Diana's first job after finishing school

I see from this external Daily Telegraph link [1] (dated 2009) that Major Jeremy Whitaker's family employed Lady Diana Spencer, aged 17, as a nanny (her first job after finishing school) at £16/week.

Is this something that should be on this page? Tony Holkham (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

→Your reference to the Daily Telegraph is not visible on the discussion page. 195.132.114.204 (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The link is:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/6672904/Roman-Polanski-will-be-too-late-to-complete-his-film.html. I must be formatting it wrong because it's not clickable... (still learning - how do I do it?) Tony Holkham (talk) 20:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The url won't appear here as it is now without either reflist template or
  1. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/6672904/Roman-Polanski-will-be-too-late-to-complete-his-film.html

    2. On the page itself there are several ways it could be entered: Roman Polanski will be too late to complete his film; Telegraph is a simple way. For a better quality citation you would need to use the cite web template.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks for the advice Tony Holkham (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

    Height

    In one photograph, which appeared on a stamp, Diana seemed to be a foot shorter than Charles. It turned out that this was caused by Charles's standing on a box. This caused a lot of sneering from Leftists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RollandRFanatick (talk • contribs) 12:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

    She was actually about 5' 10", only an inch shorter than Charles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RollandRFanatick (talk • contribs) 12:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
    In another photograph, Charles was standing on a step, giving him another six inches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RollandRFanatick (talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

    Article's first picture

    Is there no better available portrait picture for the article? It seems rather unusual that the primary picture of a person in their respective article has their face in the shade. From the current picture it's much easier to recognize the iconic hairdo than the actual facial features of the person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.154.75 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

    We can only use images of her donated to Wikimedia Commons and that does seem to be the best portrait picture available. HelenOnline 06:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
    It's a shame that so many of the pictures are of such low resolution. The only other picture we could use is this one. It's more face-on, but not really any better. –anemoneprojectors– 22:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

    'Not to be confused by a fictional dog'

    Am I the only one who finds this a little odd and disrespectful? f this character was at least human maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but a fictional animal of all things. Perhaps a Lady Di disambiguation can be made? Livin'InAGhostTown (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

    People with disabilities category

    Is there a reason why we can't put her in the people with disabilities category due to her depression? Asarelah (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

    Depression not being a disability might be one. Surtsicna (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
    Another is a lack of sources. DrKiernan (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
    Clinical depression is a disability. The Merriam-Webster dictionary states that debilitating mental conditions are disabilities, as does the Wiki article on subject of disability itself. I will attempt to locate sources for her inclusion and add them in when I find them. Asarelah (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
    You would need an explicit source to say she was disabled. If we added that category to every person who was ever depressed, it would be pretty meaningless don't you think? HelenOnline 10:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

    Article Title

    I am very confused by Wikipedia's standards. Prior to Diana, the most recent Princess of Wales to NOT become Queen was Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, mother of George III. So using that precedent, should Diana be listed in Wikipedia as "Lady Diana Spencer'? Or is it because she was alive in our lifetime, we are holding her to different standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonBux (talk • contribs) 03:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

    The difference is Diana divorced Charles before she died: Diana, Princess of Wales became her legal name. Had she died before the divorce, I suspect 'Lady Diana Spencer' would be more appropriate. The same logic applies to Sarah, Duchess of York.--PrettyWittyNell (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
    In terms of the article's title, you can see there was some discussion early on in the archive, but the present title ticks all the boxes as far as article naming conventions are concerned. (However, many of us feel that Augusta of Saxe-Gotha is at an inappropriate title.) Deb (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

    External links modified

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to one external link on Diana, Princess of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

    Miscarriage

    According to this article in Daily Mail, Diana had a miscarriage between William and Harry. This should be noted, I think. I don't know if it is true or not. Keivan.fTalk 19:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

    Maybe. I think we would need more than one sentence in the Daily Mail as as source though. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
    It probably should be included if it's true. I wouldn't use the DM as a basis for fact though. There have been numerous articles and biographies written about Diana and if the DM is accurate then this story should appear in other more reputable sources. Psunshine87 (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

    Given that the same Daily Mail article lists Prince William's birthday month as July rather than June, I agree that it's an unreliable source.ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

    Lord Althrop vs. Lord Spencer

    In this article, Diana's father is referred to as Lord Althrop (before he inherited the earldom) while at John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer, he's called Viscount Althrop, with the courtesy title of Lord Spencer. Can anyone offer any insight into this apparent inconsistency? I'm almost positive that the latter is correct and will do some research to confirm, but wanted to also solicit any feedback here. ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Viscount or Lord Althrop is a courtesy title used before 1975. After 1975, he's Lord Spencer. I don't see any particular inconsistency at his article, it explicitly says "was born Edward John Spencer, Viscount Althorp"..."He was known by the courtesy title Viscount Althorp until 1975 when he became the 8th Earl Spencer upon his father's death." DrKiernan (talk) 08:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

    Public image and style

    This article is missing information about Diana's public image and style. Should I add it as a tag on the top of the article so the other users could see it and decide to create and expand this section? Of course I'll help to expand this section in the future but unfortunately I don't have enough time now. Maybe by adding a tag, users who are interested in the topic also help and add information. Keivan.fTalk 14:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    Copyright problem removed

    Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: several sources, including the BBC, dated 2 November 2002; the New York Times, dated 13 July 1996; and the Daily Telegraph, dated 31 August 1997, at the least. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

    For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

    Note: I chose to revert to the last clean version here rather than blank most of the page and list it at copyright problems (which unfortunately is badly back-logged at the moment). That means that a good number of good-faith edits by other editors will need to be redone; I'm truly sorry about that. I'm reasonably confident that the article is now clean, but if anyone sees any suspect content, please say so! (here would be fine). This may be of interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    @Justlettersandnumbers First of all I thought that copying from a website by mentioning it as a source doesn't have any problem. Now you say that I shouldn't have done this. OK. But let me tell you that I didn't create the whole article on my own. Most of the article was written before by other users, so don't worry about copyright violation. You have already removed all of the things that I had added. Keivan.fTalk 06:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    @Justlettersandnumbers Thanks for your attention. I'll also add some information that were removed by your reverting and I'm completely sure that they weren't copyrighted. Also, I'll remove the section "Areas of work" and I'll restore it after I rewrite it completely. Keivan.fTalk 09:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    Keivan.f, I think that in the circumstances it'd be much preferable if you would kindly leave the article completely alone, and let someone else make whatever changes are needed to repair the damage here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
    @Justlettersandnumbers Which damage? I haven't added none of the sources that you had removed. I even removed a section completely because of your advise about copyright violation. You had completely removed information on "Early life", "Education", "Marriage" and "Death" sections which hadn't been written by me. Keivan.fTalk 10:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

    External links modified

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just added archive links to one external link on Diana, Princess of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

    checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

    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.fTalk 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.fTalk 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.fTalk 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.fTalk 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

    [3] "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

    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 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)

    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."[4] 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?

    There was previously a discussion on this talk page [5] 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

    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)

    Image

    Why not use an actual-color image instead of a low quality colorized one? MB298 (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

    @MB298: You're right, but we don't have a high quality actual-color image either, so using this one is the only option. Meanwhile I have given a request to a graphist here on Wikipedia to recreate the image in JPG format, which will be much better in comparison to the current PNG one. Keivan.fTalk 08:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
    What about the one that was there previously? I'm sorry, but the colourised version is not very good and certainly not the only option. Aiken D 17:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
    @Aiken drum: As I said, the previous image is of low quality as well. The sun light and shadows obviously make it difficult to see her face, besides she looks so sad or perhaps annoyed, so using the colorized version seems to be the logical option. I'll talk to the graphists again to create a JPG format of the black and white photo. Keivan.fTalk 04:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    It looks fine to me, no need to use a colourised photo. Aiken D 06:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    I absolutely have respect for you and your opinion but I don't agree with you at all. I also don't see any obstacle in using a high-quality colorized photo. That's why I also agreed to remove that PNG file just like you, as I'm waiting for the one with JPG format to be uploaded. Keivan.fTalk 02:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    I would certainly strongly oppose a colourised image replacing a perfectly fine true colour photo. If you're serious about changing it, we'll need to get more opinions. Aiken D 19:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

    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

    I didn't know. But I agree. This really should be mentioned. Maybe the astonishing 17-course meatless dinner as well. Boscaswell talk 07:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
    That time.com link above no longer seems to work? This source suggests that she was not vegetarian, but just "hell-bent on avoiding red meat and carbs at all costs." Martinevans123 (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

    No mention of her taboo-breaking re. HIV+ people...

    ...in the lede! Surely this *has* to be mentioned there? This was one of the most groundbreaking things she did. Boscaswell talk 07:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

    @Boscaswell: I think we already have a section here which explains the charity works she had done in relation to HIV/AIDS and the people affected with that disease. Keivan.fTalk 22:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
    @Keivan.f: I was referring to what I think should be done, which is to have it mentioned in the lead/lede. It was incredibly important at the time, it was ground-breaking. My feeling is that the lede reads as if those types of things which she did weren't really that important. I know that her work with landlines is mentioned there, and by all accounts that changed everything as far as the use of landlines is concerned. A similar thing can be said about her work with HIV+ people. At the time, the average Joe believed, was conditioned to believe by the tabloid media, that if you got close to one of "those people", you were at risk. Diana changed all that. To my mind, that necessitates a mention in the lede. Can you agree? Boscaswell talk 08:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
    @Boscaswell: Agreed! Sorry, it seems that I interpreted what you had written in a wrong way, that's why I was a little bit confused at first because I just had a quick look and thought you were trying to say that the information about her work with HIV/AIDS needs to be added to the article. Anyway, I feel you are right, and her work with HIV+ people is of enough importance to be mentioned in the lede. I don't think anyone opposes what you have suggested so feel free to add what piece of information you think is necessary. Keivan.fTalk 03:48, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

    20th anniversary

    Its 20 years since she passed away. Is it alright to put up something to mark her 20th anniversary?

    How come there is no pictures of the Paris Tunnel and the Mercedes Benz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.103.25.137 (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

    Because at the time, no free pictures of neither the tunnel nor the car are available. Information regarding the 20th anniversary of her death has already been added. Keivan.fTalk 10:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2017

    Please change "was the fourth child and third daughter of John Spencer, Viscount Althorp..." to "was the third child and third daughter of John Spencer, Viscount Althorp..." AmandaLPerry (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

    For the purposes of the summary at the top of the article, I think this should say something simpler such as "youngest daughter", which is really the key point. That her elder brother died within hours of birth is not really something that is usually mentioned in very short summaries of Diana's life and the present wording is slightly misleading since the death of the third child is not mentioned and the short-lived elder brother is not an important part of Diana's own story anyway. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
    Done Changed to "youngest daughter" per MOS:LEAD. Aquick Ghits comparison shows a plurality of usage of "youngest" versus "third" and many of the latter appear to be copied from or mirrors of this article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

    External links modified

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 4 external links on Diana, Princess of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

    Barry Mannakee

    Very odd that there is no mention in this article of Barry Mannakee: In a tape recorded by Diana, Princess of Wales's voice coach Peter Settelen in 1992, Diana admitted herself that in 1984 through to 1986, she had been "deeply in love with someone who worked in this environment."[1][2] Although she never used his name, it is thought she was referring to Mannakee. In 1986, Mannakee was transferred to the Diplomatic Protection Squad after his managers had determined his relationship with Diana had been "inappropriate,..."[1][3] with Diana saying in the tape that Mannakee had been "chucked out" from his role as her bodyguard following suspicion that the two were having an affair. She said "I was only happy when he was around" and that his death was "the biggest blow of my life."[4][5][6]

    I discussed what you suggested with User:Celia Homeford on her talk page and she mentioned that User:Pigsonthewing already intends to add some information about Peter Settelen or maybe something else, judging from this edit summary. I will wait to see what the other users want to do, but I may also add it myself. Keivan.fTalk 07:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
    The "more" to which I referred was the article Peter Settelen. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ a b Langley, By William. "The Mannakee file". Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved 31 July 2017.
    2. ^ Yaqoob, Janine (30 July 2017). "Princess Diana's fears bodyguard 'she was deeply in love with' was "bumped off"". mirror. Retrieved 31 July 2017.
    3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Independent_8Dec2004 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    4. ^ "BBC NEWS | UK | Diana 'wanted to live with guard'". news.bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 31 July 2017.
    5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Sun_30Jul2017 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    6. ^ Joseph, Claudia. "the curse of diana Princess Diana was the most desirable woman on earth, yet her lovers were stalked by scandal, embarrassment and death". The Sun (UK) 15 July 2017. Retrieved 2 August 2017. When Diana, just 23, suffered post-natal depression after the birth of Harry in September 1984, 37-year-old Mannakee became a father figure and confidant...

    Notice to anonymous users and page workers: Indef Semi

    I have just filed a request for semi protection ( IDC whether its one month or a decade) for this page because 2/3 of the hsitory int he last month are dedicated to the shrine of Vandalism. L3X1 (distænt write) 16:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

    Following an admin endorsement, this article is now under indefinite semi-protection.
    Shortcut

    Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) 20:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

    L3X1 (distænt write) 02:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

    Diss

    Why "near Diss"? Riddlesworth is nearer Thetford than Diss. 86.132.221.61 (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

    List of Charities

    The list of the Diana's charities seems ridiculously long. Do we really need to include all of them? Or can they be put in a box separate from the main text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChiHistoryeditor (talk • contribs) 19:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

    External links modified

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 5 external links on Diana, Princess of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

    Diana's horrible childhood

    We have watched Diana talk to cameramen and heard her talk into tape recorders about seeing her father slap her mother. We have heard Diana describe how she threw her stepmother down the stairs. Her early life was - as she said herself on audio and visual tape - a terribly dysfunctional life. She said herself that "my parents never loved me....No no, no idea. There was no hugs or anything like that." There are many direct quotes form Diana herself - now on record. There really should be mention here as to how shocking her early life was- she told us so herself.

    Perhaps you could provide some actual sources here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

    External links modified

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified one external link on Diana, Princess of Wales. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

    Aerial view

    If you mean that we should upload the image on Wikimedia, I think I have to say that it's not possible as the image doesn't seem to be free and we cannot upload images that are subject to copyright protection, unless you are the owner of it. Keivan.fTalk 19:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
    A link to that image somewhere might be useful, but that location is a blog and so would not be acceptable for External links. The introductory phrase "Just look at this nonsense" doesn't really inspire confidence. Perhaps the image has been used elsewhere (with a correct copyright attribution)? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

    History unavailable

    Is there a reason why article revision history from 2012–2014 is not available? CookieMonster755✉ 20:47, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

    There was a copyright violation that had to be revision deleted. DrKay (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
    Oh, how strange. Thanks for letting me know. CookieMonster755✉ 16:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

    Titles and styles

    Technically speaking, it is incorrect to refer to her as HRH The Princess of Wales, as this implies that she held the title in her own right. Diana was a commoner, and as such was not entitled to the rank of princess in her own right at all.

    Female spouses of princes take the princely name of their husbands, i.e. Sarah, Princess Andrew of York, Catherine, Princess William of Wales, etc.

    Diana would have been Diana, Princess Charles of Wales, but this particular title generally get shortened in practice to Princess of Wales. Her correct style at that point in her life would have been HRH Diana, Princess of Wales, NOT HRH The Princess of Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.138.234 (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

    That's incorrect. They are "HRH The Princess of Wales", "HRH The Duchess of York" and "HRH The Duchess of Cambridge", etc. DrKay (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
    Wives of British princes do get to use the style HRH. CookieMonster755✉ 16:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

    Deletion of Innocent Victims sculpture March 2018

    The deletion of the image of the sculpture appears unnecessary and presumptuous; I wish to restore it, which I will do, barring reasonable reasons posted not to, (or a vote, I suppose).

    @ Keivan.f re: your reasoning... "Unnecessary. Especially since the sculpture is about to get removed. The image of the other memorial at Harrods has been included."

    The sculpture is not a testament to Harrods; it is a piece of Art, which is being removed from the public eye and returned to Dodi Fayed's family, who commissioned it, and no longer own Harrods. As bona fide Art, it is now a part of Diana's legacy, and not in competition with the Harrods' Memorial, which is merely sentimental and far from Art. It's inclusion is neither necessary nor unnecessary, which could be said for several of the existing images. However, as true Art made in her likeness, I believe that it bears inclusion for posterity, and I see no legitimate reason why it should not be included in the page. Thank you for reconsidering. AHampton (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
    You are perhaps right but we should not be ignoring the fact that we already have a separate article exclusively for the sculpture itself. On the other hand, the article should not look like an image gallery. There are already enough images included in that section so I don't understand what the purpose of adding the image of that sculptor would be. Keivan.fTalk 23:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
    @Keivan.f Same reason it's on Dodi-Fayed's page, I'd say, it's probably the finest artistic rendering of the pair. Since they faced death together, it's all the more appropriate to show her with him on her page... who are we to separate them after death? (The earlier Harrods Memorial was obviously made in haste.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AHampton (talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
    Well, I can't comment on their relationship, and no one intends to separate them otherwise the image of the other memorial wouldn't be added in the first place. Facts and details of their relationship are already available in this and various other articles but the main reason behind adding the image of that sculpture to Fayed's page would be that the statue is the best memorial that has been dedicated to him, while Diana has (and will have) numerous other memorials dedicated to her as she was a more prominent figure, and unfortunately we cannot add all of the images of her memorials in one section. Keivan.fTalk 01:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    That they faced death together is an historical fact, not an opinion about their personal relationship, of which I have zero opinions. Innocent Victims is the singular artistic representation available to her page that illustrates the tragic demise of their connection, which, due to the nature of their deaths, will endure; it is not simply yet another photo of a much-photographed princess. re: "the statue is the best memorial that has been dedicated to him, while Diana has (and will have) numerous other memorials dedicated to her" is an opinion. My opinion, which is a common one, is that, to paraphrase you, the statue is the best memorial that has been dedicated to her, to date, as it displays the greatest artistic value, despite that Diana has numerous other memorials dedicated to her. Their appears to be no compelling reason to exclude it. AHampton (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
    I'm not offering my personal opinions either. My reply above was in fact a response to your earlier comment in regards to separating this couple which as I said is not true. By the way, what I said above about the memorial itself doesn't seem to be wrong based on the current circumstances. As you know her sons have commissioned a statue of her to be erected in Kensington Palace and unlike Inncoent Victims it's not going to get removed, thus it will be the most enduring memorial. My main reason for excluding the image however was not due to its nature and I have nothing against Fayed. What I'm saying is that the concerned section is already filled with enough images and as the statue itself has a separate article there's no need to add its image here again when it's only one click away. Another example would be the "Flame of Liberty" which has its own article and its image is not included in this article. Keivan.fTalk 03:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
    Being removed from Harrods and returned to Fayed's father does not remove it from existence, nor lessen its value as an artistic representation. Harrods is beside the point. Flame of Liberty is not Art made in her image — also beside the point. The reason that I had placed it in the array that I did– not that you asked –was due to the other two placements I had first tried, using the same image link, rendering larger images, which seemed undesirable — I chose the minimalist, though more tedious, placement, to no avail. (Possibly why other images are also loaded there.) The busy page is also why I added no text beyond the image, expecting that clicking through to the page from the image would suffice. The placement offered the smallest representation, whereas your removal denies any visual representation of that solely visual Art on her page. You might have moved it outside the array — rather than delete it based solely on your opinion that it is unnecessary. Again, to date, the statue is arguably the finest visual testament to her life just prior to her death and should not be discounted — future Memorials notwithstanding, as currently non-existent. Nor will future Memorials render Innocent Victims unworthy. Finally, most people would not know the name of Innocent Victims to look it up without doing so from her page, and then one may not necessarily be compelled to click through to it without the visual representation. (As to your your inference — I had not implied that you had any personal feeling toward Fayed; if anything, I am opining that your deletion was high-handed and that you do not appreciate the significance of the piece in the enduring biographical profile and legacy of Diana Spencer, hence feel justified in your hasty separation of its image from her page.) AHampton (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

    Retaining of Quotes from Diana recorded on tape and published

    There ought be the retention of quotes from Diana herself regarding her childhood, her relationship with her step-mother and her relationship with Barry Mannakee. All in her own words.

    Her relationship with Mannakee was such that when she was asked if he was "a kind of father-figure", she was recorded as saying: “Yeah, I suppose you could say I did (see him as a kind of father-figure), yes. I'm sure I did. I was like a little girl in front of him the whole time, desperate for praise. Desperate.”

    She also said that as the relationship with Mannakee progressed, she was: "deeply in love with him"...."I was quite happy to give all this up --well, not all this. At the moment, at the time it was quite something to have all this, just to go off and live with him. Can you believe it?.....(Mannakee's death) was the biggest blow of my life, I must say. That was a real killer.”

    The article/page quotes her brother talking about the state of his parent's marriage: "It was a dreadful time for my parents and probably the root of their divorce because I don't think they ever got over it."[6]

    Hence, the quotes about how Diana herself describes her family life and relationship with both Mannakee and her step-mother obviously should remain. I will replace them over the next few days.175.33.22.145 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

    This page is supposed to look like an article. It must NOT be filled with quotations. It's your duty as a writer to read the sources, interpret what they say, and then add a brief summary of them to the article. If your only intention is to copy-paste a bunch of quotes, then I suggest you should try editing the subject's corresponding page on Wikiquote, as that would be the right place to include those types of information. Keivan.fTalk 01:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
    In regards to what you have already written above: 1) The quote in which she says she was "deeply in love with someone in this environment" has been already included in the article. In fact, I put it in one of the first sentences when I wrote that paragraph myself a long time ago. I suggest you read the paragraphs completely before editing them. 2) The quote in which she describes her childhood as "unhappy" and "unstable" has NOT been removed from the section "Early life". It was just moved to the appropriate part at the end of the third paragraph and that pretty much sums up the whole situation she was dealing with back in that time. There's no need to add all of her quotes from the book as it will make it look like a diary rather than an article. 3) It's been already mentioned clearly in the third paragraph of the first section that she had a very bad relationship with her mother. Personally, I'm fine with adding one quote but copy-pasting all of the sentences in which she describes her relationship with Raine is definitely wrong and could even be labeled as a copyright violation. Keivan.fTalk 02:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks for your input. The page is fine now. SrbernadetteSrbernadette (talk) 04:57, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2018

    Please change She had three siblings: Sarah, Jane, and Charles. to She had four siblings: Sarah, Jane, John, and Charles.


    I noticed that in the section "Early life", it states that she had three siblings. This is factually incorrect: she had four siblings. The preceding paragraph even says this, by saying she was fourth of five children (meaning she had four siblings) and immediately following the incorrect sentence it mentions her brother who died as a baby. Amending the incorrect sentence to say four siblings makes it factually correct and brings it into harmony with the rest of the information on her family.

    Rosalie-Agnelle (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Was John still alive when Diana was born? This might explain the apparent contradiction. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
    No, he wasn't; I agree, it's a moot point whether "having" a sibling means experiencing them. Deb (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
     Not done Given that the text says very clearly "Her infant brother, John, died shortly after his birth one year before Diana was born" I see no reason to make any change. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

    Family member editing

    Delusional nonsense.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Dear Sir or Madam,

    my Name is John Terry Hoover. I am a nephew of Lady Diana. Her brother, my father, was stationed in a US diplomatic embassy in the British sector of West Germany. The article of my aunt is protected from editing. I already wrote a mail to info-en@wikimedia.org but received a response from the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team that they don't have a higher authority for editing this page. The issue is a bit sensitive why I wanted to avoid an open talk page discussion to avoid spam messages of long-term editors with Islamic, Nationalsocialistic family and communistic background. These are the classical factions that have a sadistic interest in preventing real family members from editing as part of an organized media effort to present a false background of Lady Diana.

    Could the editors that are editing this article please respond to this matter.

    Thank you kindly.

    John Terry Hoover — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnTerryHoover (talk • contribs) 16:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    @JohnTerryHoover: - Please read and understand the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy. Deb (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
    @Deb:Toward which issue are you referencing related to the conflict of interest as a family member to whom? Do you mean that the public habitat for a false picture of Lady Diana is in conflict to the updated informations by family members or toward what?
    Princess Diana had one brother who survived infancy. He has fathered seven children; neither of the males is known as John Terry Hoover. RolandR (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

    Miscarriage?

    Many sources online cite that Princess Diana had a miscarriage between the William and Harry births. I'm fairly certain that it wasn't made public knowledge (in Britain) at the time. If true and with-held at the time then it should be included - also saying how it was kept secret at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr gobrien (talk • contribs) 18:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

    What type of online sources are you talking about? Obviously tabloids are not reliable sources. Keivan.fTalk 02:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

    Main picture needs to be changed.

    The first picture of Diana on this page needs to be changed. This is not a flattering picture and if she were alive I am pretty sure she wouldn't want this picture to be a representation of her. Scjsweetie0304 (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

    If you can find a better one, please propose it. Aiken D 16:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

    I find it difficult to accept that, after all these years, the Wikipedia article about the "world's most photographed woman" lacks a decent infobox image. Readers complain about this at the talk page regularly. In this image she looks apathic; the lighting does not help either. Here she is smiling and facing the reader but the quality is poor, as noted by Keivan.f. This is a brilliant photograph, high quality, with Diana smiling and facing slightly to the left, but some (I do not recall who anymore) have objected on the grounds of it being black and white; the colorized version was rejected because it was no longer black and white.

    An RfC might be useful if only to bring attention to this problem. What we can do is search the internet for suitably licensed photographs and for photographs from private collections which authors might be willing to share. I have asked several FlickR users if they would change the licenses of their photographs to those acceptable here. There is a staggering number of photographs of Diana available online, owned by private individuals and libraries. We just need one. Surtsicna (talk) 15:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

    That's a good idea - though I don't particularly see that the photograph we use has to be "flattering", just recognisable and of good quality. Deb (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    I'll be glad if you find something useful on Flickr or anywhere else, but currently we have to choose one of the three images that are available on the Commons. Keivan.fTalk 16:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    I hoped I would not be the only one looking for a photograph. If more users chip in, finding a good photograph will take less time than going through an extensive discussion about which image is the least bad. Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

    I agree the photo isn’t great. Unfortunately many photos were taken by the press or official royal photography and as such are copyrighted. There must be a photo out there, but as she lived pre widespread digital photography anyone who may have taken a photo would probably have only a physical copy. Aiken D 18:06, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

    A lot of photographs taken by amateurs are available online. The problem is tracking them and contacting the copyright holder. I have already inquired about a few images, including this one and this one. Professionals might also be willing to share their work. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    I never even knew she had a beard! Maybe, you know, with a bit of trimming.... (seems we can thank University of Kent psychologists for this story). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Surtsicna: Yes it’s a pity about that second one in particular. Aiken D 22:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
    I also prefer the new monochrome photo. Aiken D 22:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

    I am proud to present to you four new photographs of Diana, donated by very kind FlickR users John Mathew Smith and Russ2009. Now we can fight over which one to use :) Of course, I encourage anyone interested in further improving the article to look for more! Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

    I prefer File:Diana 1996.jpg: it shows her looking towards the viewer in a portrait shot, which most readers would expect as a lead image. DrKay (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    I agree with that. Aiken D 14:39, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

    Death

    On August 30,1997 Diana was injured in the Pont de l'Alma tunnel in France.The next day,August 31,1997,she died at Pité-Salpêtriere Hospital in Paris,France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.32.122.30 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

    The crash happened after midnight, so the dates given in the article are technically correct. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

    Ambiguous syntax

    &;&; I found the embarrassing text

    She was the first wife of Charles, Prince of Wales, the heir apparent to the British throne, and the mother of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex.

    which includes several constructions, each in my recollections otherwise sufficiently ambiguous for inclusion in what is presumably now called (US) "middle-school grammar":

    She was the first wife of Charles, Prince of Wales, the heir apparent to the British throne, and the mother of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex.

       No, she never was heir apparent to the throne, nor is it plausible that she was ever referred to, even in pubs, as holding the title of either "Prince Harry" or "Prince Hairy", nor was she Duke of Sussex. (Please note that WP is not only read aloud, but read aloud, at least for the visually impaired, by machines that, at least commonly, are utterly incapable either of using context to resolve grammatical ambiguity, or of expressing such hypothetical resolution via tone or pacing. [This parenthetical comment is one the more sophisticated features of JerzyTM, the market-leading NL grammar-parser from Gee-Ahhr-Zempel Enterpises, Inc. Ltd. & GmbH. When I go on the market, this WP-talk-page remark will become irrelevant -- in the event that the anticipated retail price can be achieved. This annotation is protected bahy, & cuppie-wrought of, JiAhrrghZed Re-Search.])
    --Jerzy•t 13:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

       Aww, hell, I get my customary first-line-of-'graph-only indentation that I was taught in grade school and/or in typing courses, munged up more and more often, at the age of 72 going-on 72-and-a-half. Medicine being what it's becoming and my dear wife being the kind of good provider that I never really managed to become, despite great expectations, swan-songs are perhaps a bit premature, but there's a pertinent "Life is short, make hay while the sun shines."-sort of expression I can't quite recall in full, that it feels like it's timely for me to take to heart. My plan is to go add to my editor-talk page and fashion a better, even if perhaps pathetic "monument [to myself]" there, in a Jerzy•t 13:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    &nbspn; ... in an attempt an "apologia pro sua graphica"...Hell, never mind, this is an illstarred effort.<be>__Jerzy•t 22:56, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
      I mAy have had in mind "Gatner he rosebuds while he may// Old time is still a-flying / And the rose that this morning blooms / tomotrrow will be dying.<be>--Jerzy•t 23:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

    Princess Charles?

    Wasn't she legally Princess Charles of Wales? As that is how the MRS style is formally correct? Though of course, when this was pointed out in 1981, the post second wave feminist world threw a fit. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

    No. Her husband was the Prince of Wales not Prince Charles of Wales. 'Prince Charles of Wales' would be the style of a man called Charles who was a son of the Prince of Wales without any other title, and the wife of this imaginary prince would be 'Princess Charles of Wales'. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    I don't see how this question is relevant. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

    Born to née

    I have changed "born Diana Frances Spencer;" to "née Diana Frances Spencer;" because née is more encyclopaedic as the article "née" explains. -- PBS (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

    the article explains no such thing. "Née" is just a more pretentious way to say "born". Mezigue (talk) 08:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    No it is not. A person is not born with a name, that comes afterwards, usually in a secular state with the filing of a birth certificate (as the article née" explains) and is the case in Britain even though England has an established religion. -- PBS (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

    public image

    I wonder if Earl Spencer's quote in the public image section can be considered WP:BIASED. I mean, he's her younger brother, grew up with her... I don't think it should be completely removed from the section (as it was taken from a remarkable speech in Diana's funeral), but replaced with another one. I don't think that being "bulimic" and "hysteric" is a part of Diana's legacy, but this quote from Monica Ali of The Guardian seems more appropriate.

    "Diana's ascendancy coincided with celebrity-watching spreading from downmarket magazines and tabloids to the broadsheets and the chattering classes and her progress was a bellwether of that passage. Wronged wife, feminist symbol, fashion plate, media manipulator, ingénue, sexual predator, champion of the oppressed and needy, loose cannon, charity worker, humanitarian, hysteric, bulimic, iconic Good Mother, alternative therapy flake, challenger to the establishment – Diana was all that and more. She was a one-off, fascinating and flawed. Her legacy might be mixed, but it's not insubstantial. Her life was brief, but she left her mark." --2804:14C:4E7:84A:947D:75CD:CB2:7ED2 (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

    I'll see what I can take from Ali's article and try to include it in the appropriate section. Regarding her brother's quote, well, I think the section is overall balanced, so to have at least one quote from one of her family members really doesn't create bias in this case. Keivan.fTalk 03:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

    Memorials/The Flame of Liberty

    The article says: "The Flame of Liberty was erected in 1989 on the Place de l'Alma in Paris above the entrance to the tunnel in which the fatal crash later occurred" Mind the year, probably a typo. Unless the memorial was created for something else, it couldn't have been erected in memory of the crash that happened 1997 ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:7D0:885B:6E80:3519:90AF:EFE6:905A (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    See the linked article Flame of Liberty. DrKay (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Request that an error be corrected

    There is a link to the WP article on James Gilbey. But the James Gilbey linked to is an actor (was an actor, to be more precise). While the James Gilbey the Princess of Wales had a fling with was the heir to the gin family. 31.48.245.6 (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

    Thanks. Link has ben removed, as we don't have an article for the relevant Gilbey. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

    Baron Churchill

    Surely Baron Churchill, of Wychwood, not Baron Churchill, of Whichwood — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.81.103 (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

    Hi. Could you please point out in which section this error has happened? Keivan.fTalk 08:00, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
    Repaired already[6]. DrKay (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

    Diana Frances

    FYI: There is a move discussion regarding the Diana Frances redirect and hatnote at Talk:Diana Frances (disambiguation). – Reidgreg (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

    Lede sentence

    Since there seems to be a dispute about how the lede should be written, I wanted to start a conversation. Many editors, including myself, have disagreements about the lede and how it should be written which has caused several changes. The original lede sentence looked like this:

    Diana, Princess of Wales (born Diana Frances Spencer; 1 July 1961 – 31 August 1997) was a member of the British royal family. She was the first wife of Charles, Prince of Wales, and the mother of Prince William and Prince Harry.

    However, the lede has been changed to this:

    Diana Frances Spencer (1 July 1961 – 31 August 1997) was a member of the British royal family, the first wife of Charles, Prince of Wales. She was the mother of Prince William and Prince Harry.

    ... And this ...

    Diana Frances Spencer (born Diana Frances Spencer; 1 July 1961 – 31 August 1997), was an activist and philanthropist who became a member of the British royal family through marriage to Charles, Prince of Wales, with whom she had two children, Prince William and Prince Harry.

    There really needs to be one agreed upon format for the lede. I listed some options here but editors are free to suggest other ones.

    Option A: Diana, Princess of Wales (born Diana Frances Spencer; 1 July 1961 – 31 August 1997), was a member of the British royal family. She was the first wife of Charles, Prince of Wales, the heir apparent to the British throne, and the mother of Prince William and Prince Harry.

    Option B: Diana Frances Spencer (1 July 1961 – 31 August 1997), was an activist and philanthropist who became a member of the British royal family through marriage to Charles, Prince of Wales, with whom she had two children, Prince William and Prince Harry.

    Option C: Diana Frances Spencer (1 July 1961 – 31 August 1997) was a member of the British royal family, the first wife of Charles, Prince of Wales. She was the mother of Prince William and Prince Harry.

    I think we should stick to a variation of Option A. Her namr, when she passed, was Diana, Princess of Wales. It was not Diana Spencer. Pining Векочел and Surtsicna. I will also post this on the royalty WikiProject for open discussion. cookie monster (2020) 755 03:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

    • Option A The article's main title should be bold. Not to mention that many people would barely recognize her by her maiden name. The format used on the first option is in line with how the lede sentences for other articles on royalty are written. Option B is also technically wrong, because it implies that she was an activist before becoming a member of the royal family, which is not true. Keivan.fTalk 03:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Option A. The subject is known by Diana, Princess of Wales, not by her married name. See WP:COMMONNAME. As Kevian.f points out, she only became a philanthropist and activist after joining the royal family. It's the option that's by far the most logical. --Kbabej (talk) 03:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Option A. The primary reason for her notability should come first and option C is ungrammatical. (The final clause is a syntactic ambiguity: the British royal family isn't the first wife of Prince Charles.) DrKay (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Option A is clearer than B or C, more accurate than B, and less sexist than C. Surtsicna (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Option A. With the reasoning given above about her name, I will support this. Векочел (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Option A. Very obviously. The comma after the parentheses is wholly unnecessary though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    In this case I think it depends on whether "Princess of Wales" is regarded as her title (pre-divorce) or as part of her name (post-divorce). If it is a title, then it is a non-restrictive appositive, right? That would make the comma necessary. Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    No, the comma is never commonly used after parenthetical dates. It is completely unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    It may not be commonly used but it is not true that it is never used. For example, it is used both before and after parenthetical dates in Britannica's biography of Diana. Surtsicna (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    Note that isn't written as a sentence. We write the lede as a sentence. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

    Generally the maiden name is used to introduce the consorts of the British monarchs. For instance, the article on Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother begins as follows:

    Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon (4 August 1900 – 30 March 2002) was the wife of King George VI, and the mother of Queen Elizabeth II and Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon.

    I think it is fair to say the same style should be used for the consorts of the heirs to the throne. Векочел (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

    True. But Diana wasn't the consort of a British monarch, and she'll never be since Charles never ascended the throne during their marriage. Thus, the format that you are arguing for doesn't apply to her. Keivan.fTalk 19:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
    Here is an example from the biography of Joan, Countess of Kent, who was Princess of Wales but never became Queen: Joan, Countess of Kent (29 September 1326/7 – 7 August 1385), known to history as The Fair Maid of Kent, was the mother of King Richard II of England, her son by her third husband Edward the Black Prince, son and heir apparent of King Edward III.
    Note Joan is referenced by a title she held in her own right. So perhaps we should introduce Diana as Lady Diana Frances Spencer? Векочел (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Keivan.f: Please reply to my statement above Векочел (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Векочел: The issue here is about recognizing the individuals by their most common names. Joan was 'commonly' known as Countess of Kent. Diana was 'commonly' known as Princess of Wales. Everyone would recognize an article about her instantly by seeing the name Diana, Princess of Wales, whereas not so many people know her maiden name. Comparing her to historical characters is also pretty pointless. Each person has a unique name or title associated with him or her, and we cannot set up strict rules for all of the articles about royalty. Keivan.fTalk 00:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    Also, Joan's article is titled Joan of Kent. Queen Mary's article is also titled Mary of Teck, because these women were strongly associated with the titles or territorial designations used by their parents. In the case of Diana, her family didn't have such territorial designations to begin with. Keivan.fTalk 00:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    The maiden name is used for Queen Consorts because that is how they are generally known, principally for disambiguation purposes, since Queen Consorts don't have regnal numbers. For example, saying just "Queen Caroline" would be ambiguous, so the two Queens of that name are generally known as Caroline of Ansbach and Caroline of Brunswick. Likewise Eleanor of Aquitaine, Eleanor of Provence and Eleanor of Castile, rather than "Queen Eleanor"; Anne of Bohemia, Anne Neville, Anne Boleyn, Anne of Cleves and Anne of Denmark, rather than "Queen Anne" (which instead generally refers to the Queen Regnant of that name); Catherine of Valois, Catherine of Aragon, Catherine Howard, Catherine Parr and Catherine of Braganza, rather than "Queen Catherine"; and various others. But that doesn't apply here: "Diana, Princess of Wales" is both unambiguous and the overwhelmingly more common way she is known. Proteus (Talk) 09:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

    Separation versus affair - starting discussion for other editor

    At the help desk, another editor asked about the following sentence in this section. 

    Charles resumed his relationship with his former girlfriend Camilla Parker Bowles, and Diana later began an affair with Major James Hewitt, the family's former riding instructor.

    The editor asked if the same term should be used for both, so as to not appear biased. Since Charles was resuming a long term ongoing relationship, which began before either of them were married, and Diana was starting her affair, I think the terms are better as they are. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 22:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

    I have to agree with the editor at HD - that it's a long-term relationship previously doesn't mean it wasn't an affair, nor would having an affair without that prior link prohibit it from being a relationship. I think affair for both. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    An affair is a relationship when one of the couple is married to someone else. Charles can't be 'resuming' an affair as neither he nor Camilla was married the first time they were seeing each other. The easiest edit to make is Charles resumed his relationship with his former girlfriend Camilla Parker Bowles, and Diana later began one with Major James Hewitt, the family's former riding instructor. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    I like Celia’s solution. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 16:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    So do I. Deb (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
    Done[7]! DrKay (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

    Why can't her title be translated into Welsh also?

    I tried to add (Diana, Tywysoges Cymru) next to her name, but was reverted due to this reason: "That had very little to do with her personally. It belongs in Princess of Wales." But why not add a Welsh translation?, Her title reflects Wales and the native language of Wales is Cymraeg (Welsh), I see no reason why she should reflect that language too?, to revert due to the title having "very little to do with her personally" is the most confusing this Iv'e heard someone say, the title was very much a part of her personal life, the title (in both Welsh and English) is as important as each other, she was made a princess of Wales, she learnt to speak the Welsh language and her identity very much reflected her position of being a Welsh princess, if she were not personally affiliated with the Welsh population then I'm pretty sure that the Welsh population would have rebelled against both Charles and Diana years ago, she's was not the princess of Britain, she was not the princess of England, she was the princess of Wales. --Hogyncymru (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

    Please keep discussions in one place: responses should be posted at Talk:Charles, Prince of Wales#Why can't his title be translated into Welsh also?. DrKay (talk) 07:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

    Title

    What would Diana's title have been if Prince Charles had become king during her lifetime (but after the divorce)? Neither Queen Consort nor Princess of Wales would have seemed appropriate. Were there any plans on that matter? --Oudeístalk 01:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

    @Oudeís: She would continue to be styled as Diana, Princess of Wales during her former husband's reign unless she wanted to remarry, and in that case she would have been styled Lady Diana X (X being her new husband's surname). There were reports that her son, William, had promised to restore her HRH style. She could have become HRH Diana, Princess of Wales, but there was also the possibility of creating a new title such as The Princess Mother. Diana once had joked that she would be known as HRH The King's Mother, something similar to Lady Margaret Beaufort's title who was referred to as "My Lady the King's Mother" in the royal court. Keivan.fTalk 07:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

    Use of stigmatising language and inaccurate history in HIV/AIDS section

    The HIV/AIDS section of this article needs to be updated to use person-centred language.

    For example "AIDS victims" - from the very earliest days of the AIDS crisis years (1981-1996), people who were living with HIV and AIDS insisted on a person centred language and deliberately avoided the term "AIDS victim". Indeed, a group of them got together and drew up a document outlining how person centred language should be used for people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHVA). This document is called The Denver Principles and indeed it is one of the first examples of the person centered language we all use today when referring to people with a disability, or trans people, or LGBTQ people.

    Link here to the Denver Principles: The Deniver Principles

    The language in this HIV/AID section of the Diana page is not only stigmatisng and offensive, it is historically inaccurate. For example, this sentence: "She was not averse to making physical contact with AIDS patients, though it was still unknown whether the disease could be spread that way". By the time Diana started her charity work in the field of HIV/AIDS, it was well known that HIV could not be passed on via physical contact, in fact, there had been a massive HIV/AIDS awareness campaign in Britain by that time which outlined very well the modes of transmission for HIV.

    It is very important that this stigmatizing language and historical inaccuracy be corrected. In today's world, we have the medical technology to have an AIDS-free world by 2050 - but the greatest barrier to that is stigma. As many studies show, stigmatizing representations and discourses of HIV/AIDS actually cause rising infection rates. This is because stigmatizing discourses and representations of HIV prevent people from testing for HIV. (Who wants to be a "victim"?). If a person has HIV in their blood but is not on medication for it, they pass it on very easily. However, if someone is diagnosed as HIV positive, they will be put on antiretroviral medications (ART). After approximately 3 months on ART, their viral load (the amount of HIV virons per blood unit) will have been rendered what physicians call "undetectable" - (different countries use different numbers for "undetectable" - either 25 or 50. In the UK and Ireland, it is 50) which means that there is so little HIV per blood unit that the virus has been rendered inactive. After approximately 6 months on ART, that person can no longer pass on HIV to anyone else. Hence the campaign motto "U=U"- undetectable equal untransmissible

    Surely if we are to respect and properly commemorate the brilliant work that Diana, Princess of Wales did for the HIV/AIDS community - and she really did some amazing work in this arena - then we should be using non-stigmatizing, person-centered language? Diana herself would be shocked if she knew that the stigmatizing language used on her Wikipedia page might prevent someone from testing for the virus and thereby prevent them from getting onto life-saving ART medications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perry Cormo (talk • contribs) 06:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

    @Perry Cormo: Hi. I took into consideration what you wrote above. Thanks for pointing out the errors. It is true that scientists knew that HIV would not be transferred from one individual to another through skin contact, but I think what the sentence was trying to imply was that the general public was perhaps unaware of it. Nevertheless, I removed that sentence because I felt it was technically incorrect. Additionally, I changed the phrase "AIDS victims" to "AIDS patients" or "people with AIDS" to make the language of the paragraph more passive. I hope that helps with addressing your concerns. Regards. Keivan.fTalk 08:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

    Spelling Mistake - Correction Sought

    It is very difficult to change an obvious spelling mistake on a semi protected page. However there is one on the Princess Diana page imho and that is the word "coning" it should say "coining" which means to create a new term that people can use to identify something. I hope that someone with a bit more power than me can fix this typo. Timbrimelow (talk) 04:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

    @Timbrimelow:  Done. Keivan.fTalk 04:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2020

    write next to her photo her husband 2001:16A2:4F4A:1000:8CD0:7123:1F51:D3AA (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

     Not done It's not clear what changes you want made. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2020

    Reference to fractions

    Change "three-fourths" and "one-fourth" to "one-quarter and three-quarters"

    The former is more commonly used in American English, the latter being British English, When referring to a person of British origin, perhaps the British English is more appropriately correct. 2001:569:71DE:8D00:2CE2:3AC8:7906:E433 (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

     Done --Paul ❬talk❭ 17:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2021

    Typo in Public Image section:

    On different occasions she would complain about the way she was being treated by the media, mentioning that their connstant presence ...

    The word "connstant" should be "constant". --Qfluctuations (talk) 07:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

     Done Zupotachyon (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2021

    It is written that Princess Diana “was” the mother of Prince William and Prince Harry. Regardless of her death she still “is” their mother and I think that should be changed. 2001:BB6:78F:1300:C151:CB0F:AA8A:FFB9 (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

     Not done: your point of view is noted and might very well be popular; however, it is natural and normal for many folks to refer to someone who has died in the past tense ("was") rather than in the present tense ("is"). So there may be a need for you to seek and garner a consensus for such a change. Keep in mind that it is British English that needs to be addressed for this article. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 17:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2021

    Lord Spencer does not exist and never has He is Earl Spencer 212.250.169.98 (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

     Not done: Seems incorrect to me, see, for example, [8]. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 13:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

    Cause of death in infobox

    I would like to add the cause of death to the infobox. I tried doing it myself, but I wasn't able to do so. Can you figure out what's going on and how to add it to the infobox? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 12:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

    Note: Template:Infobox royalty does not have a "Cause of death" parameter. What do you propose to add exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, there's nothing to do here because the template doesn't actually allow such a value. Primefac (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

    Incorrect Information Silfield Private School

    Silfield Private School is NOT in Gayton. It is on Gayton Road in King's Lynn, Norfolk, about six miles away from the village of Gayton. I cannot correct this information because the page is, understandably, blocked to prevent vandalism. Perhaps an Administrator can correct this inaccuracy? HumanBeingWH (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

     Done Thanks. Yes, you are correct, as in this BBC source here. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

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

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

    Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

    Image change

    I think we should change the infobox image on this page - the image is from later life (just a few months before her death) and not the frequent representation we see. Perhaps an image of about 1988/1989 would be better suited? Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

    Considering the fact that she was young when she died, I guess it would be better to use an image that shows her in the final stage of her life. Her face did not change drastically in a way an old person's would change throughout his or her life, so she was technically still in her prime. Her family also did the same for the statue at Kensington Palace (with the short and not very puffy haircut). Keivan.fTalk 02:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

    I feel like the iconic look she had in the 1980s is more of how she remembered though. Yes, it may be that older photos were used in reference for the statue, but on most of the covers of her biographies, portraits, etc. we see a younger Diana. Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

    Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021

    1. Add her engagement age: 19. 2. Add her age when they wed: 20.

    No source needed. It says so on this page. Just a a clarification. 2A02:AA1:1013:F566:C40E:CB02:273A:732 (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

     Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Signed, I Am Chaos (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diana,_Princess_of_Wales/Archive_3&oldid=1136310585"