Alixz, I am not one of the number who see QM, QEQM, or DoW as the "bad guys." My contention has always been that without strong women David, Bertie, Henry and George would have floundered. None of them seemed to know how to think for themselves-could this have been because their dominating parents controlled how they thought and felt? That if they ever showed any kind of individualistic thinking their bombastic father shot them down in flames. I believe these males had clout only because of WHO they were. None of them were particularly bright, they just happened to be the sons of the King.
I think Wallis, Elizabeth, Alice and Marina enabled their rather poor male specimens to be the best it was possible for them to be. David, IMO, would not have been a good King. He clearly did not want to be the same sort of King as his father but didn't know how to be the King he would have chosen to be. Wallis made it possible for him to be a good husband to her which was better than than making a poor job of something he hadn't the capacity for. Elizabeth's success story with Bertie is well documented-was it his mother who commented that the right wife would be the making of him? Were truer words ever spoken? Alice seemed to manage very well to hold her own with brusque, curmudgeonly Henry, no easy thing, he seems to have been most like his father in temperment and character. Who but beautiful Marina would have coped as well with Georges dubious sexuality and allowed him to express the artistic side of his personality by the placement of flowers and objets' d'art in their home.
Three of the four Princes were permitted to marry women of their choice and probably their lives were made better by it. Churlish, then, to deny David the same advantage, when without Wallis' support and direction he would probably added up to nothing much.