Duke and Duchess of Windsor (1894-1972) and (1895-1986)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Blaming the victim is not right. Lots of elderly people have no one close to look after them; still not right to take advantage (although it happens all the time, sadly).

Having children is not a failsafe, either.
 
Zonk said:
Well you have to remember that David and Wallis were people who had friends and associates but really only needed (in David's case) and depended on each other.

Long time workers were let go for a variety of reasons, David was estranged from his family, Wallis was far away from hers and really she was only close to a cousin or two and Aunt Bea. Than David died, and Wallis didn't trust Mountbatten (which probably wasn't a bad idea) who might have been strong enough to prohibit the abuse, and get rid of Blum. Any friends like Diana Mitford and Diana Cooper were either ill, dead or two far away to stop it. But people who take advantage of things like that, often separate friends from their intended victims.

That's how something like that could happen.
Click to expand...

Very true, Zonk. I see it in my practice where even siblings are at war, with one taking advantage of a parent and the others are forced to go to court to try to protect mom or dad. But I just thought, perhaps foolishly, that as famous as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were, that someone would have insisted on seeing her, even if to bask in her diminished spotlight, and then have been appalled at her treatment. But as you say, friends and family get older, drift away, and thus . . .
 
Hi VS,in our world, if we want to speak to a friend we use a phone or post of one sort or another or we simply arrive and say "hello". We, mostly! don't have to wait for the butler to convey a message to "HRH!!!" and then wait to be informed about when it will be convenient for her to recieve us!!! My understanding of true friendship is that it requires a degree of intimacy on both sides in order for it to progress. I have enormous difficulty in imagining Wallis fulfilling that role in any relationship because I sense such reserve in her that I feel she would deliberately keep one at arms length in order to avoid intimacy-maybe there were things that she couldn't risk speaking about. The most one would gain from that kind of relationship is superficiality and for me, it's how I see her life. How many times would one call after being told each time that "HRH" was "resting," "speaking to her doctor/dressmaker/hairdresser?" I feel it would need deeper bonds of friendship than Wallis had ever experienced to break through that kind of wall. However, I think it a cruel irony that her well ordered and controlled life eventually controlled her by cutting her off from the society she had once ruled.
 
Vasillisos Markos said:
But I just thought, perhaps foolishly, that as famous as the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were, that someone would have insisted on seeing her, even if to bask in her diminished spotlight, and then have been appalled at her treatment.
Click to expand...
But someone did go see Auntie Wallis--I can't remember if it were when Blum had her hold over Wallis or not, however it was after David died--and received some lovely earrings. HM was not amused I had read. . . :whistling:


:D
 
Russophile, I believe she gave earrings to Pcess Michael of Kent who IMO could wear them with aplomb, but sadly, one visit does not a friendship make. There surely must have been an element of curiosity to the Kent's visit, they would be less than human were it not so and having met the phenomenon who was responsible for the ensuing chaos within the family-I'm assured that I fulfilled the role in my own family!!!-they may have seen their duty as being done. She was, after all, only related by marriage, the widow of a late uncle. One can almost hear the possible thought processes, "Not our responsibility. Best not to drag all that up again. QEtQM would not approve, etc." Thus another aging "relative" falls off the radar.
 
PrincessKaimi said:
Blaming the victim is not right. Lots of elderly people have no one close to look after them; still not right to take advantage (although it happens all the time, sadly).

Having children is not a failsafe, either.
Click to expand...

Who said I was blaming the victim. What happened to the Duchess was sad but there are plenty of people who are if they are good friends don't just walk away. Think of the late Brooke Astor....she had good friends who decided to intercede on her behalf. They saw what the lawyer and son was doing and went to court to put an end to that. Thank goodness she had a grandson who alerted them.

The same thing could have been possible for Wallis (didn't the same thing happen to Doris Duke) but the fact remains that Wallis and David were a force unto themselves and didn't need anyone else. Thats cool but one when dies (like David) and the other lives its hard to all of sudden develop true and lasting relationships. I think Wallis had friends and family but they obviously weren't close enough to realize what was going on and intercede on her behalf.
 
POW at Lourdes

I've just read a moderately interesting book called "Double Exposure". It's a joint autobiography by twins Gloria Morgan Vanderbilt (mother of Gloria and grandmother of Anderson Cooper) and Thelma Morgan Furness (Viscountess Furness). Lady Furness was the mistress of POW who asked Wallis to "look after the little man" while she was away, and of course, we all know what happened thereafter.

Thelma once visited Lourdes while traveling in France with the Prince, and he was concerned that he, a Church of England communicant, would not know what to do at the Catholic service being conducted at Lourdes. Thelma (a Roman Catholic) said, oh, just do what I do. It was an outdoor service, and when kneeling was appropriate, they knelt on the ground.

Of course, pictures hit the UK papers, and there were cries of "WHY is OUR PRINCE KNEELING in the MUD?"

This book, long out of print, is available in its entirety at the following link:
http://www.archive.org/stream/doubleexposure000008mbp/doubleexposure000008mbp_djvu.txt
 
Last edited:
So I'm reading The Windsor Style by Suzy Menkes right now. I've had it on my shelf fo years, and have always gleamed through it catching quotes here and there (it's a lovely coffee table book full of great photographs) but have never actually read it.

The book was published just a year or two after the DoW died, and Menkes is a fashion insider, so one would think it would be a total fluff project. But it's not. I'm realizing reading it why I like the Windsors--despite their enormous flaws. Menkes makes no bones about the fact that they were racist and extremely shallow, but that they were loyal to their friends (a very few, but they existed and were valued by D&W) and the royal family (it mentions that no matter where they were, they would listen to QEII annual speech on the radio).

It does strike me that for all the jet set glamour they surrounded themselves with, they lived very sad lives. Wallis, at least. And I don't believe she even realized it: a woman so insecure she refused to see her husband without make-up and coiffed hair when dining alone or staying up in her room when the moon landing was happening because she was afraid she's looked ridiculous without her hair up, or staying inside a ship cabin all 5 days of the voyage so her hair would stay in place. No to mention, her obsession with being pin-thin.

The book also alludes to David growing lonely at the years go by: how late in life, he no longer wanted to be the all-night partyer, how he felt undercut by Wallis's wit and relationship with Jimmy Donahue.

That said, I do love their dedication to beauty and entertaining. Even though they weren't deep, intellectual people (per Menke's sources), they did care about making their acquaintances happy. And they did very obviously care about fashion and jewelry as art forms. If they had lived a century or two earlier, I think they would be more acknowledged within history for those cultural contributions rather than just remembered for the abdication and toxic personalities.

(Just for clarification: I have read other biographies on D&W.)
 
Duchess said:
although there weren't many details, here's the story in a nutshell:

A lady from Ontario, Canada, that passed away several years ago, claims that she was married to the Duke of Windsor for a brief period. She also claims to have given birth to a child that he fathered during the marriage. The child was taken away and she never heard anything about it again and the marriage "disappeared". She always told people that she couldn't talk about it but after her death everything would be revealed. The night she died, her home was broken into and ALL of her personal papers were stolen and never found. Family members say that they have seen pictures of her with the Duke and that they also remember seeing correspondence from Buckingham Palace. The timing would be right as the Duke had a ranch in Canada at the time. None of this has ever been proven...or disproven.
Click to expand...
I have lived in Ontario for most of my life and I have heard this story circulating again and again....Wish we knew more
 
CordeliaFitzgerald said:
So I'm reading The Windsor Style by Suzy Menkes right now...
Click to expand...
Wonderful insights, Cordelia. I must find a copy of that book and peruse it some day. When I read your observations about Wallis refusing to see the Duke without her makeup or refusing to join others for fear that her hair would get "mussed" I had to laugh because my sister, starting in her late teens, would not even go out to retrieve the newspaper without first doing her hair and powdering her face. I chalked that up to teenage insecurities about her looks. After a while, this too ended and although she takes pride in her appearance, I have no doubt that she now slaps on a pair of sunglasses and wears a head covering when she shops in the early morning.:lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If you can get it, it's totally worth it. Lots of wonderful pictures of their homes, fashions, and jewelry. Also, it has recipe index and information on the jewelry auction. Unfortunately, it's out of print, so you'll have find a used book site to get a copy--and it's pricey too. (I got my copy from ebay and had to bid up to $80--and it was a tight bidding war. That was 10 years ago, so I can imagine what it would cost now.)

Reading about Wallis's insecurities actually makes her more relatable. One would think being on the Best Dressed list for 40 years would make her less self-conscious and more self-confident, but it appears that she remained weary of her body and face (3 face lifts!!!) her entire life. I do think she was vain, but her vanity came from NOT feeling beautiful rather than because she thought she was the It Girl.

That said, I'm glad Menkes doesn't gloss over Wallis's cruel side. Whatever it stemmed from, she should have learned to outgrow it or tone it down, but it seems liek she prided herself on being...vulgar and thoughtless. Her priorities were all wrong. Or at least, too focused on herself and her inner circle of moneyed folks. (Then again, Oscar Wilde mocked Emile Zola 'we don't to read books about dreary people and their dreary lives' so maybe it's a common thread among aesthetes? It wasn't until after Wilde was jailed for homosexuality and witnessed a hanging, that he suddenly realized that maybe it's having a social conscience isn't something 'dreary' after all.)
 
I must agree with Cordelia's sentiments about the Book and the Windsors!

I too purchased it within the last year or so on either ebay or half.com. I would encourage anyone to periodically look at the site...I can't remember exactly what I paid for it...I don't think it was 80 bucks...sometimes you have to take a chance and others aren't thinking the same as you...you can sneak in there and get it fairly low.

Anyway back to the book..... Its bloody fantastic! I particularly love the pictures of the Mill in Paris....the wild flowers are lovely.
 
It seems that a move may be afoot, according to the television this morning, to do a rethink on the Duchess of Windsors' reputation. One of the given reasons was the ten years since the QMs death. There is also a new book and Madonna's film to look forward to. D of W fans, watch this space!!!
 
Edward viii

Whats everyone think of him? I Personally think hed be a terrible King
 
Yes, I agree. A constitutional monarch has to put his nation's needs before his own, and I think that Edward VIII would have found that very hard to do.

Royal Fan said:
Whats everyone think of him? I Personally think hed be a terrible King
Click to expand...
 
He was not king material sorry to say but he was prince material.
Being head of state is not an easy task Edward understand that
and abdicated .
 
I think he would have been a bad KIng. In fact I think that he did not really wanted to be a King, so he puts his personnal interests on among. At this time a Prince raised to be a correct King would never do that he did. But I think it was better that he abdicated, instead of being a bad King.
 
Was Wallis ever infertile?I wonder why she never had kids.
 
IloveCP said:
Was Wallis ever infertile?I wonder why she never had kids.
Click to expand...
I've read somewhere that she became infertile because of unsuccessful abortion made in early youth,as she had no kids in any of her marriages.
 
How accurate is the rumor that the Duke and Duchess had a masachistic relationship? I find it interesting that the Duke's biographer Philip Ziegler speculates about it in his book (end of chapter "Mrs. Simpson") and in a documentary on the Queen ("Ten Days that Made the Queen"). I almost don't want to believe it. The thought of her abusing a man who used to be the King of England!!
 
Tsaritsa said:
It seems that a move may be afoot, according to the television this morning, to do a rethink on the Duchess of Windsors' reputation. One of the given reasons was the ten years since the QMs death. There is also a new book and Madonna's film to look forward to. D of W fans, watch this space!!!
Click to expand...
I fail to see how the 10 year anniversary of the death of the Queen Mother has anything to do with the Duchess of Windsor's reputation.

If, as you seem to be implying, the general thinking is that Wallis's reputation was purely as a result of the Queen Mother's deep and personal antipathy, I suggest that someone has a lot of historical reading to catch up on.


Madonna can spin history however she likes but she can't change the facts.
  • Wallis was still married to her second husband whilst having an affair with the Prince of Wales and, if the FBI is to be believed, another man as well. Let's face it, in 1932 that was pretty racy stuff.
  • Her pro-fascist politics which she so generously shared with the Prince of Wales, culminating in their ill advised visit to Berlin in 1937 with it's successful meeting with Hitler sealing, as it did, their position in the eyes of the British political and social establishment as Nazi sympathisers and possible spies.
  • Encouraging David to ignore his duty and party on because, well hell, he was the King, coupled with her inappropriate behaviour as "Consort" prior to the abdication
  • His mother, Queen Mary, and his brother and sister-in-law's continued total rejection of both David and Wallis in the years after the abdication, largely as a result of their continued dilettante lifestyle, which during and immediately after the war ensured they became both social and political pariahs.
  • Wallis and Davids intense feelings of entitlement which included a flirtation with treason in denying Elizabeth the throne. Revealed: the Duke and Duchess of Windsor’s secret plot to deny the Queen the throne - Telegraph
  • The fact that David "cleaned out" the Duchy of Cornwall and then sold it back to his brother.
I am sure that the powers that be as well as the British Royal Family were aware of this and it coloured their future relationship with the Windsors.

But, to imply that Wallis bad reputation could be laid solely at the feet of the Queen Mother is both naive and ignorant.

The deeply personal animus toward the Duchess of York whom she saw as a hopelessly frumpy and boring housewife and her bad luck to be caught belittling her publically by doing an unkind imitation of her upon the occasion of their first meeting certainly set the stage for sisterly-in-law antipaty.
 
pgm 1952, Edward found it impossible to function without the direction of a strong, dominant woman-Wallis fulfilled that role and whilst it may be distasteful to contemplate her public censures and reprimands, represented her deep love for him. She is, perhaps, worthy of his country's undying gratitude!!!
 
:previous: More like the entire Commonwealth! :D
 
Lumutqueen said:
He fell in love with a divorced women, that makes him highly unsuitable? IMO, no. It made him seem unsuitable in the minds of the royals, politician and possible people, at the time. He would have made a very suitable King, and presumably ruled his country very well and through the war, if he had not been forced to abdicate due to a misguided heart. If Edward had ruled, this topic may not exist.

Love did not make that man highly unsuitable, opinions forced him to be looked upon as unsuitable.

William will, unless (touch wood) something happens, will be King. There is no test he can take, no one really he has to prove himself to, no jury to decide the decision on suitability. He is of royal blood.
Click to expand...

:previous: I highlighted the points you made that are incorrect. You are right to say that the direct reason Edward VIII was forced to abdicate was because of his relationship to Wallis, but to honestly think that Britain would have been led well by a Nazi sympathizer when Britain was at war with Nazi Germany, is simply wrong.
Britain was saved from a monarch who would have led his country into the lion's den thankfully by a simple misguided heart.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent & Strathearn & Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld
Replies
7
Views
1K
Prinsara
Prinsara
Blog Real
King Edward III 'The Confessor' (1003/5-1066) and Queen Edith of Wessex
Replies
3
Views
842
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Blog Real
King Vittorio Emanuele I (1759-1824) and Queen Maria Teresa of Austria-Este
Replies
2
Views
497
Blog Real
Blog Real
Blog Real
King Edward I (1239-1307) and Wives (Eleanor of Castile & Margaret of France)
Replies
17
Views
1K
LauraS3514
LauraS3514
Blog Real
King Carlo Alberto (1798-1849) and Queen Maria Theresa of Austria
Replies
2
Views
551
Blog Real
Blog Real

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom