I can't say I really blame the British royals for not wanting the Windsors in England, at least in the beginning for a variety of reasons. The family was personally appalled by the act, the public was reeling as the press had remained silent up until almost the last minute, it was felt that the new king needed space to establish his identity , that it would be very awkward to have 2 living Kings in the country at the same time and what on Earth would the former King's role eventually be. It was unprecedented in modern British history, or modern royal history. It would up going well in the Neterlands but that was later and under very different circumstances. I think there were great and legitimate fears about the stability of the monarchy, no matter how popular it had been. It modern times, it has basically existed upon the good will of the populace and popularity can be a fickle thing. Edward's parents were aware of this and did their utmost to keep the popularity going, they never coasted or assumed that it was something that was to be taken for granted. Even today, witness the effects of Charles's relationship with Camilla and the immense harm caused, despite the Queen's popularity and dutifulness over decades of service. With thrones still relatively precarious in 1936 (the Spanish monarchy having been tossed over just a few years prior) I can only imagine what was going through everyone's mind. PM Baldwin's informed the King that "... the Queen becomes the Queen of the country. Therefore in the choice of a Queen the voice of the people must be heard."
Edward had also undercut himself from some of the pillars of potential support. While George and Mary had made inroads towards making the monarchy more accessible, being very visible and amongst the people, dealing well with the Labour governments and so on, there was no doubt they were traditionalists to the core, just ones who recognized the need to change in order to survive. It was viewed that Edward would prefer sweeping change and demonstrated a disdain and contempt for traditional notions--though he might not have been as radical as feared since he publicly referred to left-wing politicians as 'cranks'. Some ministers felt he would try to meddle in politics and Ramsey MacDonald wrote that "These escapades should be limited. They are an invasion into the field of politics & should be watched constitutionally." He also made speeches that ran counter to governmental positions and butted heads with his ministers over the Italy/Ethiopia situation, even refusing to receive deposed Emperor Selassie. Many influential members of society, the Church and the political class also felt his set an extremely bad moral standard for the public. The role as Defender of the Faith and marrying a twice divorced woman undermined him with the Church--this issue was still potent in the case of Charles 60 years later. Wallis's first divorce wasn't recognized by the Church of England and while, if challenged, this might have annulled her marriage to Ernest Simpson, the same problem would've existed with the King. He showed tone-deafness with his subjects in Scotland following his refusal to open a new wing of Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, claiming he could not do so because he was in mourning for his father. On the day after the opening he was pictured in the newspapers cavorting on holiday with Wallis. All this in addition to what the government feared about Wallis--both true and untrue--especially regarding any German sympathies. Many reports were given credence at the time, however, so the thought that this woman (whatever the rest of her faults) could become consort would have been frightening to many in power and extremely damaging.
On 13 November 1936, the King's private secretary, Alec Hardinge, wrote to the King warning him that: "The silence in the British Press on the subject of Your Majesty's friendship with Mrs Simpson is not going to be maintained ... Judging by the letters from British subjects living in foreign countries where the Press has been outspoken, the effect will be calamitous." Media silence was maintained until a Bishop seemed to make reference to it on 1 Dec, stating that the King needed to be more aware of his need for divine grace. After that, bets were off and Wallis fled the country by the 3rd. I once bought an old scrapbook on ebay that was pretty much devoted to the situation and the difference in coverage was remarkable. The American press wasn't shy at all about comments or photographs. It's remarkable to think how much silence could be maintained in Britain when one is living in today's 24 hrs, instant news coverage. Those photos would have hit TMZ and video would have been splashed all over YouTube within hours nowadays.
