King Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson (Duke and Duchess of Windsor)

[Alixz]

The mansion in Paris was also rented at a "stipend".

I don't care how or why they came to be in the situation they were in.  If you don't have the money - just don't try to spend it!

Even their transAtlantic travel was on ships that let them stay in large suites for the price of a interior cabin.

[Kalafrana]

£21,000 per year, tax-free! That was a hell of a sum before the inflation of the 1970s. As a comparison, my maternal grandparents sent four children to fee-paying schools (day schools admittedly), ran a car and lived quite comfortably on £600 a year in the 1930s. My father's pay as an RAF Pilot Officer in 1953 was 17 shillings per day.

If they were worried about money, the answer was simple. Live quietly and accumulate some savings. Don't expect someone else to fund your lavish lifestyle.

Ann

[CountessKate]

Sir Edward Peacock, a former governor of the Bank of England and Controller-General of the Duchy of Cornwall, was requested by Edward VIII about a year before the abdication, to invest his private fortune of over £1 million, deriving largely from the duchy revenues prior to his accession, into non-English securities and a settlement for Wallis Simpson.  Sir Edward advised that if knowledge of this transaction got out, it would prove extremely unpopular, but Edward insisted upon it.  At the time of the abdication, he pleaded poverty to the Duke of York and estimated his disposable income to be no more than £90,000, or effectively an annual income of around £5,000 - according to Philip Ziegler, a "suicidal" lie, suicidal because it would be demonstrated to be a lie when the new king assumed responsibility for the duchy finances.  This was the basis on which the new king provided an income for the Windsors, as it was decided that he could not seek to do so from the civil list because of the complications inherent in the Duke of Windsor's life interest in Sandringham and Balmoral, which the King was partly buying out in his annual payments to the couple.  And it was this lie which caused the King to threaten to revoke the income he was giving the Duke.  "You were under great strain and I am not seeking to reproach you or anyone" he wrote in February 1937. "But the fact remains that I was completely mislead."

A charitable interpretation could be that the security of money became much more important to Edward as King and Duke of Windsor as his life leading up to and after the abdication became both devoid of the purpose for which his life had been dedicated (albeit not by him), while the security of the loyalty given to the crown by his family and the country devolved upon his brother.  Hence his constant demands and fears of poverty, possibly sincerely meant but frankly ludicrous given his personal fortune which was well able to cope with a very luxurious standard of living for a childless couple with no taxes (at least outside the UK). 

[Kalafrana]

I'm sure I've read that the Duke managed to avoid paying UK income tax as well. If so, this was a very valuable privilege indeed, as for a long period after 1945 the marginal rate of tax for the very rich was over 90% (this is referred to in Ziegler's biography of Mountbatten, since Mountbatten fell into this category).

Ann

[Eric_Lowe]

I think they do worry if the money would be quickly gone so they tried many ways to maintain a style suitable for an ex-king (remember there are quite a few around from Romania and other countries), most of them did not disappear and very active even after they were dethroned. I don't think you can ask them to go "quietly". I think the unlawful insistence of not giving Wallis & the long exile from Britain was enough punishment on him. He could not even live as a country squire in his own country like the Kaiser did in Doorn. It was clever of them to find ways of keeping expenses down by other renting a royal for an event or provide the French with a romantic celebrity couple (the price being given tax-free status) was a scoop for the Windsors.

[Robert_Hall]

The Kaiser did not spend his exile as  a country gentleman in his own country. He spent it in  the Kingdom of the Netherlands  by the gracious favour of it's queen.
 Face it, no matter how you care to paint them, they had it made and gave nothing back.
 Carol of Romania was a reprobate and not a good comparison.  Ferdinand of Bulgaria kept a pretty low profile and Manoel of Portugal  displayed his talents in translating  Portuguese literature.
 Country gent indeed. He probably did not even know how to turn a spade, had gardeners do it for him.
 

[Kalafrana]

As I understand it, the Kaiser financed himself in Holland from his own resources, and lived fairly quietly. He purchased Doorn, a former bishop's palace, rather than being given it. Whether he paid Count Bentinck for his 18 months in Amerongen with entourage of 40  I don't know, but he did finance a cottage hospital for the village as a thank you when he left.

Ferdinand of Bulgaria was a Coburger in any event and presumably had property and resources there which he drew on when he returned.

I don't know about George II of Greece in his exile, but none of his relations seem to have been all that well off.

Did the Duke of Windsor ever do anything for the French in return for all those years of free accommodation and no income tax?

Eric may think that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were very clever to negotiate all these favourable deals, but I just find them small-minded and grasping.

Ann

[Alixz]

I just think they wanted one kind of life and when it was denied to them, they tried to maintain it anyway.

To me they were selfish and given to thinking that they "deserved" far more than they did just because David had once been a king. The "had once been" and for a very short while is the key here.

Eric, I think, sees life differently than most of here who expect to work for our daily bread and to contribute something back for what we are given.

He seems to think that taking whatever could be gotten for free is a good way of life.  He would love the "new American Dream" of suing someone big time and then living for the rest of one's life off the proceeds. 

When the song says the best things in life are free, it doesn't mean mansions and jewelry.  It means fresh air and the love of another and sunshine and good friends.

[LadyTudorRose]

Come on, y'all. The Windsors were living the dream, like the Kardashians. Famous for nothing, and richer than most people will every hope to be.

[Eric_Lowe]

Well lets face it, none of us could think of giving away a kingdom for a woman. He could have had it all if he was more devious, to keep his throne and Wallis as chief mistress (lot of men would do that). But he didn't, he wanted to marry her and share her life. It is really profound in which way you put it. Wallis knew that and spoke of the burden of living it up (the romance of the century) "He gave up so much for me !". So what ever people might say, I think that act was reckless and romantic. If you look at the whole thing from that angle, you could understand the fascination for the Windsors. Compared with Carol II of Romania or King Alfonso XIII, it was only one woman for him for life--Wallis. I think he was very honest in his love and never look back or regretted anything. 

[Eddie_uk]

Come on, y'all. The Windsors were living the dream, like the Kardashians. Famous for nothing, and richer than most people will every hope to be.

Living the dream? I can't think of anything more fickle & boring, going from holiday resort to holiday resort, to endless partys, full of false pawing people most likely. What a worthwhile, rewarding & giving experience...not, I cringe at the thought of it.

[ashdean]

As I understand it, the Kaiser financed himself in Holland from his own resources, and lived fairly quietly. He purchased Doorn, a former bishop's palace,

Doorn was bought from the maternal grandfather of the actress Audrey Hepburn.
In the early days of his exile the Kaiser sold 6 strands of pearls to Cartier for a 7 figure sum...this may have tided him over for a considerable time..plus later he had income from his families private Prussian estates many of which were never confiscated.

[Robert_Hall]

I hope I did not imply that the Dutch queen supported the Kaiser financially, just that she allowed  him a peaceful exile.

[Robert_Hall]

Right Eddie.  Who's dream were they living ?  Certainly not my idea of one.  I enjoy traveling, a lot, and shopping, \dining out, etc. But, I pay my own way.  Also, it is not the be all and end all in my life. I used to party a lot as well, but that has pretty much come to an end.
 

[Alixz]

I don't like the Kardashians either.

Silly women who think that appearance is everything and that money grows on tress.  Didn't one of the daughters just spend 10 million on her wedding?  And how long will it last?  Maybe two years or two months?

These people could pay off the national debt with what they waste.

But as much as I dislike them and their stupid reality shows, they do have the money.  And as little as I know about them, I do know that the daughters work (if you can call designing clothing and selling it on QVC - which fawns all over them - work).

The Duke and Duchess of Windsor complained that they didn't have the money but still wanted to live the high life.  They just expected everyone else to pay for it for them.