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

[Eric_Lowe]

Yes. May was a blond but her brother Frank was dark & handsome.

[LivingInDFW]

Hello, all.  I'm new to this forum. I don't consider myself a royal lover nor a monarchist, but I have a strong interest in the history and, yes, even some of the gossip. While I'm not an expert by any means, I do have my opinion which I'm eager to share. It's so interesting to read this forum and realize that there are still many people deeply moved by the subject of Edward VIII and his short reign.

While in hindsight it may seem the Duke of Windsor would not have made a good King, we cannot ever be certain.  Had he been allowed to carry out his duties as King and marry Wallis, he may have stopped his obsession and concentrated on his duties. I'm not saying he would or would not have made a good King; I'm merely pointing out that one cannot be sure how history would have played out.  Further, it is my understanding that he wanted his family to receive his wife, as well as carry out some official royal role as Duke.  Had the Duchess of Windsor been accepted by his family and the Duke given his royal 'job,' perhaps the ceaseless globetrotting and parties would not have been their chosen path.  Who's to say?  At any rate, Elizabeth II would still be Queen today.

George VI and his Queen were the right pair for the job for the times.  I do not like the way they treated the Duke and Duchess of Windsor.  It's ridiculous that he could never take his wife home.  It's not only mean-spirited, there is an unspeakable cruelty about an ongoing grudge match.  I don't care how good you are at your job or if your loved 'by your people'--the Royals behavior spoke volumes about their overall character.  It's petty and un-Christian for the Head of the Church of England and his family to set that example.

As the son of a twice-divorced American woman, I know only too well how disapproving family can damage not only the relationship, but the self-esteem of the individuals being made to feel less- or not-equal-to others.  It's shallow and has no place in my life.

Now, don't take this as an endorsement of the D&D of Windsor, they behaved badly, too.  However, they'll always be remembered, and people are still talking about them.

Thanks for reading.

[grandduchessella]

Welcome to the forum.  

The closest evidence we have to how they might have carried out royal duties if they'd been accepted into the royal family is their time when the Duke was the Governor of the Bahamas. Reports of personal and professional behavior wasn't exactly to their credit. Wallis, for instance, was heavily criticised for her extravagant shopping trips to the United States, undertaken when Britain was under rationing and blackout and referred to the natives as "lazy, thriving n*****s" in letters to her aunt. Churchill had to complain when the planned to tour the Caribbean on a yacht owned by a Swedes believed (incorrectly it seems but the appearance was there) of pro-German leanings and again over a defeatist interview given by the Duke. The Duke referred to the Bahamas as "a third-class British colony" andsaid of Étienne Dupuch, the editor of the Nassau Daily Tribune: "It must be remembered that Dupuch is more than half Negro, and due to the peculiar mentality of this Race, they seem unable to rise to prominence without losing their equilibrium." He was praised for his resolution of civil unrest over low wages in Nassau in 1942, even though he blamed the trouble on communist agitators and draft-dodging Jews. Everything points to both of them 'just not getting it'. Some of these attitudes were reflections of the time but the British royal family had been known for being pretty open-minded and tolerant of different races and religions--to the despair of some of their friends and relations.

Divorce was also unthinkable back then--obviously divorcees are more welcome in the royal family in today's climes. There were a myriad of reasons for the grudge between the couples and, while I don't condone all the behavior, I don't blame them for it either. Edward VII broke a sacred trust in the family by choosing personal happiness over duty. It might seem ridiculous that one couldn't have both but the reality was in that time, one couldn't. He made his choice and was forced to live with the consequences.Even knowing before his marriage, via the Letters Patent, that Wallis wouldn't be HRH, he spent the early days of his brother's reign (not like his brother had anything going on) haranguing him daily via phone about the matter. And whatever feelings he might have had, I have trouble believing that Wallis would have really preferred a life ala the Gloucesters or even the more soignee Kents to the jet-set life they enjoyed. I just have trouble picturing her in an endless round of ribbon-cutting and hospital opening.
 
I remember a quote from Kenneth Rose's book that basically said Queen Mary told him that his countrymen had sacrificed so much during the War and the aftermath that they should be able to expect the same sense of sacrifice from their monarch.

[Margot]

Ella you talk of sacrifice in the event of world war...or least use it in a comparison via quote reference to WWI!


May I just clarify whether or not it is a fact that Eleanor Rooselvelt or a member of her entourage intimated that QETQM flouted the rationing restrictions during WWII? Also, Queen Mary moved from London, literally requisitioned Badminton and spent the war overseeing the culling of ivy all on an annuity of 60 thousand pounds + a year! I do find the ethos of sacrifice in such cases rather difficult to swallow!


I do think that the freezing out of the Windsors was taken to extreme! It was almost personal! I thought the Monarchy strived to be about the People!

[grandduchessella]

Ella you talk of sacrifice in the event of world war...or least use it in a comparison via quote reference to WWI!


May I just clarify whether or not it is a fact that Eleanor Rooselvelt or a member of her entourage intimated that QETQM flouted the rationing restrictions during WWII? Also, Queen Mary moved from London, literally requisitioned Badminton and spent the war overseeing the culling of ivy all on an annuity of 60 thousand pounds + a year! I do find the ethos of sacrifice in such cases rather difficult to swallow!


I do think that the freezing out of the Windsors was taken to extreme! It was almost personal! I thought the Monarchy strived to be about the People!

WW2 hadn't happened yet so when QM made the comment about sacrificing personal happiness because of the sacrifice of the citizenry of the country during WW1 and the Depression, I believe it was apprapos. I think the bottom line of her comment was that the Duke of Windsor consistently put himself ahead of his country and countrymen.

And the freezing out wasn't 'almost personal', it was very personal.

[grandduchessella]

I agree the D&D didn't show much promise during the Governorship of the Bahamas.  Obviously, neither was pleased about the location of their exile, but stronger characters would have done their duties and kept complaints to themselves.

The racist comments the Duke made were in line with his rearing, though.  It was his father, George V, who remarked during the Titanic inquiry that men who purchased 1st class passage on the vessel should have been guaranteed a seat on the lifeboats (ahead of women and children of 2nd and 3rd class bookings).  That doesn't make any of the comments acceptable, but the sense of entitlement and social order was a dominant theme in their lives.

I had never heard that--where did you read it? And yes, if true, it would reek of unacceptable entitlement but not the racism that permeated much of the comments of the Windsors.

Bottom line, I detest the Duke of Windsor for a myriad of reasons, though growing up I thought him such a romantic figure and was a big fan. The more I read of his private writings about his family (esp his brother John), his personal and private conduct and so on, the less and less I cared for him.

[Eric_Lowe]

I think there are too Davids...The one before his abdication and one after. I think his negative side came out more after he was sidelined. I actually liked the Duchess better. She was a no-nonsense girl from Baltimore who was calputed into a situation.

[Grace]

Completely agree with you, Eric!

[Eric_Lowe]

Thanks. I think he is a bit complexed in character. He love Britian but did not have the confidence that it can win the war against Germany. I would say more misguided than treasonable.

[mcdnab]

The reference in the letter of Queen Mary was to the sacrifices made in the First World War.
 During the Second World War the King was insistant over his mother's objections that she should go somewhere safe (she wanted to stay in London as she had no great affection for the country) - Badminton was the choice because it was the home of her niece (who had married the Duke of Beaufort). The annuity she received was her civil list payment which she received as Queen Dowager. She made numerous local engagements throughout the war and often stopped her car to pick up passing servicemen and women. There wasn't much more a woman approaching her 80's could do really.

Eleanor Roosevelt was impressed by the pretty unpleasant conditions at Buckingham Palace on her visits - and several other people in society thought the Royal Family "Very ration concious".

The grudge between them all has long been over exaggerated - David in exile was a man who had been deferred to and listened to throughout his entire adult life and he never really understood just why his family felt they couldn't accept Wallis. Their attraction to unsuitable characters, the fact that he lied to King George VI about his financial assets, the fact that he attempted to upstage his brother on several occassions before the outbreak of war just made things worse and hardened attitudes in London (and it wasn't just the Royal Family even former allies like Churchill found the Duke and his constant demands an irritant). I think that the general view of the hatred directed towards them which they encouraged has very little basis in fact...their useless post war life was largely their own fault - Edward wanted to move to the States in the 40's (he had no great affinity for France or the French) however he was desperate to be attached to the British Embassy so as to avoid having to pay Tax. The Government view was that he shouldn't have any official position so he stayed in France!

Ella you talk of sacrifice in the event of world war...or least use it in a comparison via quote reference to WWI!


May I just clarify whether or not it is a fact that Eleanor Rooselvelt or a member of her entourage intimated that QETQM flouted the rationing restrictions during WWII? Also, Queen Mary moved from London, literally requisitioned Badminton and spent the war overseeing the culling of ivy all on an annuity of 60 thousand pounds + a year! I do find the ethos of sacrifice in such cases rather difficult to swallow!


I do think that the freezing out of the Windsors was taken to extreme! It was almost personal! I thought the Monarchy strived to be about the People!

[Eric_Lowe]

I think The Duke had a legitimate grudge against his brother for not allowing Wallis to be HRH. The law is quite clear that Wallis should be an HRH, to deny her the title basically reduce her to a morganetic marriage, which the wife cannot hold the same dignity as her royal husband. Queen Victoria once said "We don't have this (morganetic marriages) in our country, if a prince marries a peasent girl, she would be considered as royal as any princess." One of the most famous was Queen Elizabeth Woodville, wife of King Edward IV. Also the newswas given to the Duke on his wedding day (he burst into tears), which should be the most happy day of his life. He gave up the throne for Wallis, but couldn;t even give her a proper title. I think that is unfair legally on the part of the Royal Family. All the bad blood came from this insensitive act.

[Robert_Hall]

Simply put, Eric, you are mistaken. There is no  "law" about this.  The only rule that would apply is "the soveriegn is font of all honours". As such, it is up to that sovereign- and  only him  or her to grant an HRH.

[Margot]

According to the Lord Chancellor, Viscount Jowitt in a letter to the Prime Minister Clement Attlee written in 1949 and pertaining to the deprivation of the HRH status from Wallis, Lord Jowitt maintained that the basis for the deprivation as implemented from the Letters Patent of 27th May 1937 "are founded upon a complete misapprehension of the law." But this became an irrelevant point of observation as the then Prime Minister Baldwin had acquiesced and the deprivation was carried out with the sanction of the elected Government Cabinet in May 1937.

[Eric_Lowe]

Simply put Wallis was entitled to the HRH which did not seem to be a problem at the time of the abdication. David thought Bertie & Elisabeth (particularly) stabbed him at the back, hense he became a loose cannon. In this case, I do feel that the Royal Family was not totally straight forward with the Duke & The Duchess.

[Margot]

Actually Eric I have to agree!

When David abdicated he was I believe no longer subject to the terms of the Royal Marriage Act 1772 as he was no longer in the line of succession! Therefore the issue of his marriage and the titles of his future wife did fall outside the remits of the original act! It is a very interesting issue which I did not really understand until recently! Actually I am still not certain of it to be honest....but I do gather that David was under the impression that Wallis would be an HRH upon marriage because of his unique position having abdicated.

With the prospect of marriage I think the decision to deprive Wallis of the HRH was a crafty chicane move as well as a way to ensure that any issue David and Wallis had would be excluded from any rights or aspirations to the throne! I must say though I do not know.....did David abdicate not only for himself but also for any lawfully begotten issue he may have had in the 'future' when he signed the instrument in December 1936 or was it just a word of mouth agreement that later had to be cast in vellum so to speak by the Master of the Rolls!


I am very unsure of all the legalities but I do see where you are coming from on this Eric....although as the Prime Minister and Cabinet of the day sanctioned the deprivation I can not see it as illegal! Saying that, was what Blair did in 2003 with the approval of his Cabinet legal! NO NO NO Margot Stop it!!!!! Naughty Margot!!!!!.... Sorry I slipped into another issue there I do beg everyone's pardon!


Back to the HRH title....hmmmmm....I do wonder!