Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales

Moved page

I moved this page here in accordance with the discussion we had recently on the page about naming conventions (sorry, I can't remember the name of that page now). It is both her correct title, and a name under which she was better known than her maiden name, and which she retained after her marriage. Deb 17:02 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with the page being at "Diana, Princess of Wales", although I should point out that it was not actually her name during her marriage (she was then "HRH The Princess of Wales"), but only after her divorce. See the British Royal & Noble Families FAQ at http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-14 -- Oliver P. 17:17 Feb 15, 2003 (UTC)

Photo and Hon.

Princess Diana was one of the most photographed people in history! Surely there's a photo of her somewhere that we can use?

The abberviation "Hon." is used throughout the article. Many people, myself included, are not from England and are unfamiliar with the abbreviation. Does it stand for "Honarable," "Honorary," or something else? Can someone please fill out the full term the first time it is used in the article? —Frecklefoot 15:15, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It means honourable and is written simply as Hon.FearÉIREANN 21:02, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Several weeks ago I decided to add a pic of Diana to the article. But, after spending a frustrating hour searching dozens of sites, I found nothing free of copyright so I gave up. Someone who reads Wikipedia and photographed her, would have to donate their own pic. Annoying, isn't it!

Adrian Pingstone 20:28, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

All we need is permission to post it. Do you remember the URL of one of the photos you liked? All you need to do is email them and ask for permission to post it and assure them we'll include copyright info with it. I think the photo is then bound by the GFDL? I'm not sure about this, but someone might be willing to contribute a photo or two. :) —Frecklefoot 17:16, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia cannot carry pictures in the manner you suggest. If it is copyright it cannot be used. In Diana's case, it is unlikely that we will be able to get a copyright image. Because of Diana's iconic value, no photographer is likely to wave copyright on a Diana image. FearÉIREANN 21:02, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Photo Solution

I *may* have a possible solution to the poto of Di problem. As we already know, nobody who has an image of her will donate such a thing because it could be potentially worth a lot. However, at Madame Tussaud's there is a sutnningly lifelike bust of Diana. Perhaps someone could go there, photograph that bust, and place it here?...

Just an idea. - 206.156.242.36

I don't know if this would work. If the statue was covered by copyright, wouldn't the photo be a derived work? ( 21:18, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I looked it up, and it seems that it's ok, at least in the UK. There is an exemption for photographs of buildings, statues, etc., which are permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c62) ( 21:40, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well then, the photo of the bust wouldn't work. Don't you have to pay to get into Madame Tussard's? If so, I don't think that qualifies as "open to the public." It is open to "paying customers." But IANAL, so I could be wrong... —Frecklefoot 14:45, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This act doesn't seem to define "open to the public", but from definitions in other places, it seems that theatres, galleries, etc., are generally included even if a fee is charged. The thing also has to be on "permanent" display, not part of a temporary exhibition. Also, you would need to check the fine print of the ticket to make sure prohibition on photography was not a condition of entry - this would not lead to a copyright violation, but to potential contract problems. See also [1] ( 18:43, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There was a loophole in this kind of law in the UK I believe where if you photograph a person holding a picture, or a newspaper with a picture or something, then that would be not be covered. No sure how useful this would be, or the precise legal footing of such a thing, but I know some newspapers in the UK have used this ruse to get around issues like this.

It's a kind of fair use thing - the caption would be something like: "Mark Richards pictured here with his copy of 'Diana - a Photographic Study'".

Also, what about a sketch? Someone could trace a photo, or sketch her? Mark Richards 18:07, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Polls continue to suggest that a large majority of people believe the deaths to have been the result of assassination.

'A large majority' seems unlikely to me. Do we have sources to back this up? DJ Clayworth 16:39, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the reference was to a Daily Express phone poll which found 83% in favour of the conspiracy theories - but this was only a phone poll, ie it wasn't representative of the general population, only those who chose to phone in. More reliable polls give about 25%, so I've amended the reference. --257.47b.9½.-19 13:41, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ottawa Treaty on landmines

It's a bit confusing... seems to have opened for signature in 1997, entered into force in 1999, ratified by different countries at different dates. Needs its own page really for a full explanation. --257.47b.9½.-19 16:50, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Motivations which have been advanced for murder include suggestions that Diana intended to divorce Charles, -- eh? She'd already divorced him so that's a rubbish motivation. -- Arwel 13:04, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to create an article detailing various conspiracy theories on her death? This article could point to that article and note that they exist, but concentrate on what ever the official reports say. The current structure seems unbalanced to me, it's in chronological order except for the section on conspiracy theories:

intro
early years
meets Charles, marries
married life
charity work (this follows her marriage, since she suddenly had a high profile she could use to support charities)
death
conspiracy theories surrounding her death, branching off in several different directions
suddenly back to the days before and after her funeral, public mourning
her continuing legacy.

What do you think? fabiform | talk 13:49, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Fabiform. Sounds to me like maybe that would be a good idea.

On the up side:

- That's what's been done with John F. Kennedy versus John F. Kennedy assassination, and that seems to work well.

- We could go into more detail on the various theories about what could have happened, without making the article seem unbalanced (for a while it seemed like we had more about her death than her life, that's why I've been looking for info about the charity work etc)

- As you say, it could make more sense chronologically

On the down side:

- From the pov of those who support the conspiracy theories, perhaps it gives them too little prominence if they're in a separate article? We would be giving primacy to the official explanation over the alternatives. (Personally I'm ok with this, but that's just me)

- This might mean that the discussion of what could have happened moves into the 'facts about her death' section.

- Some facets of her life just won't go into chronological order, it makes more sense to arrange them thematically (eg the charity work happened both during and after her marriage, at the same time as she was having kids, having affairs, etc]].

On balance I'm in favour of a separate page.

Best, --257.47b.9½.-19 14:28, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Polls

Re my reversion of this change:

158.152.12.77 (changed back to 'Accident or Murder'; on polls: sampling method can indeed be qd, but no basis for assuming polls with lower %s for 'murder' are more 'representative')

You can't possibly believe 'Accident or Murder?' is NPOV, you're just trying to promote the idea that she was in fact murdered. If you don't like 'Conspiracy Theories' then suggest a compromise and lets see if we can go with that, it's a waste of both our time to keep changing it back and forth.

Re the polls: for now I've removed this para entirely as it seems so contentious. Do you understand what is meant by a 'representative' poll? I tried to explain it in the body of the article (that's the text that you deleted). It means a poll where the participants are 'sampled' (chosen) in such a way that they are representative of the population at large. A phone-in poll, where the participants choose themselves, doesn't in any way represent the opinion of the population at large - just those people who chose to phone in. The other poll (the 25% one) was afaik carried out by a professional polling organisation. But if you have a problem with the other poll, lets just compromise and omit them both...

--257.47b.9½.-19 14:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From 158.152.12.77

Sounds as though we disagree about a couple of things, but I *do* think 'accident or murder' is NPOV, and it would be good if you could accept that that's my genuinely held opinion. I mean what else says so clearly what the main difference of opinion regarding the crash is actually about? Either it was an accident, or it was murder. There are those who believe one, there are those who believe the other. I can't quite understand why you think that's a biased statement to make. It's simply the truth. 'Conspiracy theory' puts the onus on those who believe one rather than the other. One might as well put the label of 'Official report accepters' on one camp without putting a label on their opponents. Or use as a title, 'Was the Official Report Full of Lies?' You might justifiably say that *that* sort of approach was non-NPOV! 'Accident or Murder?' surely *is* some sort of compromise.

I do as it happens believe it was murder, but I can't see that saying 'Accident or Murder?' is not NPOV. I think that's precisely what that section, as it stands, is about. I'd oppose putting the murder idea on a separate page, or even breaking it up into different 'theories', as if one has to accept one particular 'theory' in order not to accept the official version. Best I think just to list some alleged holes in the official version (such as the blood test) and some aspects that many believe to be suspicious (such as the alleged disappearance of the car that the Mercedes came into contact with in the tunnel, despite being in the middle of Paris embassyland).

I can't at the moment think of a compromise that you might find acceptable, but would like there to be one. Maybe use 'Accident or Murder?' as title and you could suggest changes to the detail of the body text? Me, I don't like 'conspiracy theories' as a title, nor the idea of referring to Mossad, the IRA, etc., when few actually believe they were responsible. (Probably the proportion of assassinationists who believe the IRA was involved is about as small as the proportion of accidentalists who believe the Windsor family always had Princess Diana's best interests in mind, and wished her all the best in her life after her separation and divorce, whatever life decisions she may have cared to make). Smacks too much of trying to make a widely-held view look ridiculous. I'm pleased though that no-one's tried to mention Elvis :-)

I do indeed understand what is meant by sampling, and won't bother demonstrating my knowledge at length by defining random, stratified, quota sampling etc. There have been many polls, some have been straightforwardly self-selecting, some haven't, but frankly there isn't a single one that a reasonable person would insist was 'unbiased'. Most have given more than 50% for 'murder', and the general trend in this percentage has been upwards since the 'Secrets of the Crash' film in 1999. My impression from people I know (I live in the UK) is also that most people believe foul play was involved, although YMMV. I can't prove that it's much much more than 25%, but it is. A poll run by 'Time' magazine recently gave 62%. Not much point in our arguing this one out - suffice it to say that I accept your compromise on the polls issue.

Best regards, 158.152.12.77

James II -> Diana

James II of England (1633-1701) & Arabella Churchill (1647-1714)
Henrietta Fitz James (1667-1730) & Henry Waldegrave (1661-1690)
James Waldegrave (1684-1741) & Mary Webb (d. 1719)
James Waldegrave (1715-1763) & Maria Walpole (1736-1807)
Anne Horatia Waldegrave (1759-1801) & Hugh Seymour (1759-1801)
Sir Horace Beauchamp Seymour (1791-1851) & Elizabeth Malet Palk (1793-1827)
Adelaide Horatia Elizabeth Seymour (1825-1877) & Frederick Spencer (1798-1857)
Charles Robert Spencer (1857-1922) & Margaret Baring (1868-1906)
Albert Edward John Spencer (1892-1975) & Cynthia Elinor Beatrix Hamilton (1897-1972)
Edward John Spencer (1924-1992) & Frances Ruth Burke Roche (b. 1936)
Diana Frances Spencer (1961-1997)

(Since it's been queried, here's the line. A "bastard" descent, but a descent nonetheless. No idea what's up with James II, "slaveholder") - Nunh-huh 00:51, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From 158.152.12.77

If anyone is sceptical about the description of James II as a slave trader, please could they check this out with a simple Google search such as:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22duke+of+york%22+slaves

When he was Duke of York he was head of the Royal African Company, set up in 1660, the year the Stuarts retook the throne, a company which monopolised the English slave trade. His slaves were branded on the forehead with the letters 'DY' for 'Duke of York'. He is a much written-about figure and plenty has been written about his role as a slave-owner.

He also happens to be the person whom the city of New York is named after.

But, regardless of the truth or otherwise of the above, how is this relevant to this article? fabiform | talk 04:22, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Only insofar as a guy is mentioned one of her famous ancestors, saying he was king is saying one important thing about him, saying he was a big-time slave-owner (basically running the English slave trade for years) is saying another, equally important.

(158.152.12.77)

Saying that he was king identifies who he was. His association with the slave trade is an utterly irrelevant detail in an article about Princess Di. john 18:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I disagree, John. First, 'king' is not 'who someone is', it's an office, or what they do. Second, the place where I have now restored the slave ref. is to when he was Duke of York, in which context he is *best known* for his colonial-military-naval and slaving activities - i.e. activities in the New World (Yorktown and New York were both named after him), and running the Royal African Company. (158.152.12.77)

Once again, no. The article is not about James II. The article is about Princess Diana. The one part of the article is meant to describe her descent from British monarchs; the other to describe the fact that she was the first Englishwoman to marry an heir to the throne since Anne Hyde, who married the Duke of York, who was later James II. I don't see why his colonial endeavors are of any interest in this article , while the fact that he was King James II is essential to identifying who he is. If you want to discuss his slave trading, the James II article is the place to do it. Otherwise I could add in details about the glorious revolution, or his Catholicism, or Jacobitism, or anything else about James II. john 00:51, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Once again, yes. (What do you mean by 'once again, no' by the way?) You say "I don't see why his colonial endeavors are of any interest in this article, while the fact that he was King James II is essential to identifying who he is. If you want to discuss his slave trading, the James II article is the place to do it. Otherwise I could add in details about the glorious revolution, or his Catholicism, or Jacobitism, or anything else about James II."

You imply that all other facts about the 'Duke of York' other than that he became 'king' are equally irrelevant. But in another paragraph, there are references to things done by other ancestors - that one was an heiress, another was a stockbroker, another was an actor, another was a merchant. I cannot see why those who later became recognised as monarchs should be excused from having anything said about what they did. I suggest just inserting 'slave-trader' before 'Duke of York', to tie in with the single-word descriptions of other ancestors' activities. If one ancestor was a stockbroker, why is this relevant, whereas the fact that another was a slave-trader supposedly isn't? (158.152.12.77)

Full Name

Recently I have been told that the original and full name of Diana is less known. I have googled a lot, but couldn't find anything. If anyone knows that, you may add that in the article. --Rrjanbiah 04:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Huh? It's in there. She was born as the Hon. Diana Frances Spencer. When her father became Earl Spencer in 1975, she became the Lady Diana Frances Spencer. john 05:54, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not sure and not convincing. Anyway, what is "Hon." (Honourable? awarded when born?) -Rrjanbiah 06:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styles_and_titles_of_peers#Children_of_Peers for the answer to this question Mintguy (T) 09:33, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not convincing? What on earth are you talking about. She was "honourable" as the daughter of a courtesy viscount. She became "Lady" as daughter of an Earl. john 09:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)