What role would an ex royal wife have?

[lemonsandbakewell]

Just a question, what public role is there for a divorced royal wife? Let's say William and Kate divorced would Kate's role change and if Diana had lived for example? Would they be allowed to speak publicly about politics as they are no longer married to their royal husband?

Admittedly my royal knowledge and interest doesn't go much beyond the Tudors, but I'm still saying Anne of Cleves is the precedent for this @B00kMark
Divorced, no kids, supported by her ex financially, kept her head down.

@PicsinRed - superb film!!

well what is autumn phillips doing now?

@lemonsandbakewell are you asking for a 'friend'?

[quote Ironicpentameter]@PicsinRed - superb film!![/quote]
It is, and so applicable 😂

I understood Diana refused the Royal Protection officers, which I believe were still offered to her (possibly because of her high profile, and because she was the mother of the future monarch).
Otherwise, Diana still spoke at 'events', and still had a high profile.
Diana received a settlement on their divorce (or maybe separation), and continued to live at Kensington Palace (Charles lived at Clarance House - London address, Highgrove otherwise).
In the case of Andrew and Fergie, I believe she received a much smaller settlement. Fergie tried to raise money by writing children's books, and being an advert for 'Sliming world' (or similar). I think she was also caught 'selling' access to P. Andrew. But then she moved back into their joint house - so no longer required accommodation costs.
I think the answer is that it would largely depend on how hogh their profile was before divorce, age, etc.
The question was about speaking out on politics. A bad idea for anyone royal or formerly royal, because politics change, and prime ministers become the opposition, and vice versa. So, if a Royal or divorced wife wanted to maintain a high profile, and be invited to 'events', then being politically neutral would be an advantage. (In my opinion).

@lemonsandbakewell Because the RF's bankrolling them, of course! Do exactly what we say & behave like a Stepford wife, or get treated like the ones who didn't do that.

As pp says, Diana did not have royal protection removed. She declined it. 😂 at “Sliming World”. Autocorrect strikes again.

@smilesy Obviously a 'Freudian Slip' as they say.
A quick google reveals it was actually Weight Watchers - my mistake.

@smilesy

As pp says, Diana did not have royal protection removed. She declined it. 😂 at “Sliming World”. Autocorrect strikes again.

Diana declined protection because she believed that her protection officers were reporting her movements back to the Royals - as she was told by Martin Bashir. He has so much to answer for.

What about custody of children if they happened to live in the U.S?
(puts on tin helmet...)

@BadgerB

What about custody of children if they happened to live in the U.S? (puts on tin helmet...)

No precedent to follow, so it should be sorted out in the best interests of the DC.

In accordance with relevant laws, which will be the ones that apply in the place where the DC are normally relevant.

I don't think the Crown having formal responsibility for minors who are high enough up the line of succession will be a key point, because the aim in that (historically) is to ensure they don't do anything wildly unsuitable that endangers the dynasty. Residing in in a country which is a key ally and with which UK has a much vaunted special relationship doesn't do that. Dynastic marriages aren't a feature of international politics