Queen Mary- part 4

[royal_netherlands]

In my opinion your right about the fact that Queen Mary did not cut off David because of the abdication crisis. Maybe in the spotlight she behaved like the Queen she had always been - regal and dutifully - but behind the scenes her mother instinct got the upper hand I believe. Offcourse she struggled between royal duty and family matters, but that she banned David from her live is one thing I don't believe. She and her son kept writing letters to each other and I believe she also sent a nice letter when the Duchess of Windsor was in the hospital or something. I'm not sure about the last, but I remember reading something like that.

[Robert_Hall]

I think the consensus is that QM did indeed remain on  loving terms with her son.  This has been noted in bios of both parties concerned. It is just ignorance or imagination to think otherwise.

[Eddie_uk]

Well that's what I thought. But when Eric, a "noted author" as he describes himself and "friends" with other excellent authors (so he says), I of course read and absorb everything, because I am so keen to learn, I take him at his word and start doubting what I previously thought. I think it's dangerous to quote "facts" which, with a little research, show they are nothing more than false & lies....

I'm so keen to know what everyone else thinks??? It would be so sad if this forum (such a wondeful learning resource) turned into the likes of Wikipedia!!

[grandduchessella]

Over on the Queen Alexandra thread Eric Lowe (The name alone causes me to shudder)

I respect the sentiment of desiring (even demanding) citations and proof. However, please no personal attacks on fellow Forum members. Both (proof and politeness) are Forum rules.

[grandduchessella]

In my opinion your right about the fact that Queen Mary did not cut off David because of the abdication crisis. Maybe in the spotlight she behaved like the Queen she had always been - regal and dutifully - but behind the scenes her mother instinct got the upper hand I believe. Offcourse she struggled between royal duty and family matters, but that she banned David from her live is one thing I don't believe. She and her son kept writing letters to each other and I believe she also sent a nice letter when the Duchess of Windsor was in the hospital or something. I'm not sure about the last, but I remember reading something like that.

An illustrated article on the Windsors--I think perhaps in conjunction with his autobiography--once showed the inside of the Paris apartment. One of the few family photos to be seen was a large one of Queen Mary in a fairly prominent position. One can speculation that it was there for good form or from sentiment but it was there nonetheless.

[Eddie_uk]

Thank you grandduchessella, I apologise, it was not intended as a personal attack, just the person mentioned has been very rude to me and all I did was ask for proof relating to several of his remarks. That' why I can't help but cringe.

[CountessKate]

I think both 'a loving relationship' and 'banning' are extremes of behaviour, neither of which was Queen Mary's way.  I'm not aware that after the abdication Queen Mary ever received the Duchess of Windsor, even privately, which created a certain distance between herself and her son which made things a little strained and awkward and contributed to the Duke's continuing resentment against the royal family.  However, she did keep up a regular correspondence with her son and met the Duke in 1945 and Pope-Hennessy quotes her writing "David arrived by plane from Paris on a visit to me-I had not seen him for nearly 9 years!  it was a great joy meeting again, he looked very well".  Pope-Hennessy also quotes the letter to which I think royal netherlands refers, which she wrote to the Duke when the Duchess was ill in New York in 1951 to say "I feel so sorry for your great anxiety about your wife, and am thankful that so far you are able to send a fair account so we must hope the improvement will continue.  Do write me a short account of what has really happened".  She certainly continued to love him as her son, but her unrelenting stance against the Duchess was interpreted - and not only by the Duke - as cold and unforgiving.  In fact I think the shock of the abdication was so great she simply could not bring herself to actually meet the Duchess, who no doubt she with her Victorian upbringing placed most of the blame upon for the whole business.  In that attitude she wasn't being fair, of course, but then she wasn't being cold either.

[Keith]

The Duchess of Windsor wrote a letter to Queen Mary while the Windsors were in the Bahamas, which she gave to the Bishop Dauglish to give to Queen Mary when he was in England. The Bishop wrote the Duchess that Queen Mary showed a keen interest in the Duke's work in the Bahamas and asked many questions. The next letter the Duke had from his mother she wrote "I send a kind message to your wife." The Duke was quite bewildered until years later when the Duchess told him what happened. 

[royal_netherlands]

I think Robert has hit the nail on the head. And Eddie has done a similar thing.

Because telling history without referring to the right sources or to any source at all is like re writting history for those who have are unknown to the facts. Not everyone or every member of this forum digs into the books and researches every 'fact' or story that is presented to them. So they assume it is the truth. I'm not an expert on every royal or imperial family or person either. So I hope I'm reading the facts at the threads that are not so familiar to me. Offcourse we can suggest the 'what if' question sometimes - but only between the lines - for the simple reason it just never happened. Presenting so many errors and false stories without referring to the rights sources can indeed be ''dangerous'' for the historical sense of people and the image of the person referred to.

Thank you gdella. I remember seeing that photograph too containing Queen Mary's portrait, and I truly believe it wasn't there only for the photoshoot - but more for sentimental reasons. One can think what he likes offcourse.

And thank you too CountessKate for giving the right quote from the Pope-Hennessy biography and your sharp views. I agree. Most of the time I get my books from the library so I don't have them standing in a bookcase to grape. It is almost the academy awards thanking speech I know, but I just like discussing thinks and I don't want to forget anyone. So I must thank Keith too for the anecdote.

I was wondering the following. Was Wallis in England for the funeral of her brother-inlaw George VI in 1952? Wasn't the famous photograph taken of her peeking out of the window in black wearing Queen Mary's pearls? Could it be she met Queen Mary somewhere during these days? If not, I'm also not aware of a other occasion the two could have met. At least after the abdication crisis in 1937 until the War in 1939 there could have been no occasion - not to mention the wounds were to fresh. During the War the Windsor stayed at the Bahamas and the Royal Family had other things on their mind - so if their ever was a meeting it must have been between 1946 and 1953 I think?

CountessKate is definitely right that Queen Mary was in shock after the abdication. I've read in Queen Wilhelmina's official biography that Queen Mary could not understand why Wilhelmina abdicated in 1948, just because she was only 68 (!). Aldo Queen Mary and Queen Wilhelmina were fond of each other - and even banned during the War - the abdication of Wilhelmina in 1948 reminded her again of the forced abdication of her son eleven years earlier - aside was offcourse also the British tradition of staying on the throne until death. But it proved it still was a weak point in Queen Mary's system.

[Robert_Hall]

RN, I think that famous  picture of her at the window  with the pearls was for the funeral of the Duke of Windsor, 1973. This according to  Jewels of the Duchess of Windsor byCulme/Rayner, 1987 Sotheby's I do not know how reliable this is, though. [Should be, the  book cost  $50 !]

[royal_netherlands]

Yes offcourse! Thank you very much Robert for clearing that out. I wasn't sure anymore which funeral it was. I got the one of Queen Mary looking at her sons funeral from a balcony mixed up with the one of Wallis looking at her husbands funeral in the same sort of way. Offcourse Wallis was allready quit old in this photograph so I could have known.

I suppose the Duchess of Windsor got Queen Mary's pearls after she died in 1953? If so, it could have been Queen Mary's ultimate way of showing she approved of the Duchess of Windsor her status as wife of her son; the former crownprince? We all know how much Queen Mary adored her jewelry - so it must have been a huge gesture leaving some of her precious pearls to a woman that played with her believes. If she really had been so cold, she easly could have left nothing for the Duchess of Windsor.

[Robert_Hall]

Nice sentiment, RN, but somehow, IMO, I doubt "approve" would be the right word. "accept" might be better. The majority of her collection of jewels went to the present Queen, of  course.  As I read it, without going back through all these books were individual  gifts of not much historical import or value other than  sentiment. These are mentioned in the many bios of QM  and her immediate descendants.

[royal_netherlands]

Yes ''accept'' is indeed a better choice! But historical importance or not it was atleast something for the Duchess of Windsor. Good night!

[Robert_Hall]

Yes, I agree, RN.  It gave  the acceptance that the Duke always wanted, in one way or another. Even if a private gesture. And if I have this right, the actual gift/bequest was to the Duke, who, of course was not likely towear them himself so were to be then to be  given to his  wife, by him.
 Complicated way to do things, but, that is the way they were.... I think that was in the Times,  and I have  long lost that collection of  clips & articles.

[Olga Maria]

I looked through Parts II and III (where is part I?) of her threads but didn't see these: