The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #541  
Old 08-01-2010, 09:44 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 11,510
Branchg...is there anything that supports the theory Edward was sterile?

Is this something that came out later. I only ask because if this was something that George V or anyone else knew, perhaps it wouldn't have made a difference if Edward had married Wallis. He could have married anyone, didn't have a child, and then George and Elizabeth would have inheirited the throne anyway.

Can you imagine how different British history could have been?!
__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #542  
Old 08-01-2010, 10:11 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,975
I know of that theory that he was sterile but I also know that there are people who claim to be his children and one of them I have known of personally - my father was the solicitor in a town near where Edward stayed on his visit to Australia in 1920 and where nine months later a girl was born who received cards and other stuff from the royal family and Edward while my father was the family's solicitor. She herself never claimed to be Edward's child officially but the general belief around the town where I grew up was that she was his child. Her parents married shortly before she was born and her 'father' took care of her but it is noted that she went to a different school to those of her younger sisters and she was raised Anglican whereas they were raised Presbyterian.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #543  
Old 08-02-2010, 07:20 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The Dukedom was created by George VI in March 1937...
Thank you very much branchg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Extended members of the royal family yes, but disgraced ones IMO.
Well the 2nd Duke would be the grandson of George V, 3rd Duke would be the great-grandson.
Would be a shame if any potential heirs were treated with the same level of disdain shown to edward
Reply With Quote
  #544  
Old 08-02-2010, 07:46 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,396
Potential heirs to what?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #545  
Old 08-02-2010, 08:07 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Potential heirs to what?
The Duchy of Windsor
Reply With Quote
  #546  
Old 08-02-2010, 08:14 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,396
Well to be honest, any potential heirs, IMO would stay quite clear of Britain and the RF because to not do so would cause trouble.
They would have to live with the fact that they will until at least The Queen passes, have to deal with that problem.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #547  
Old 08-02-2010, 02:06 PM
qui mal y pense's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: spring valley, United States
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Campbell View Post
Would be a shame if any potential heirs were treated with the same level of disdain shown to edward
One can't help but remember the 'lovely' pictures of the Windsors making nice to Hitler. The course of history might have been very different had E been king. I doubt the royal family would ever have acknowledged any illegitimate heirs. I can't recall any being acknowledged in the last century... and I'm sure they're out there somewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #548  
Old 08-02-2010, 02:09 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,396
First of all just because Edward was apparently "nice" to Hitler, doesn't mean his children would have been.
Also, any children Edward and Wallis might have had would have been legitimate, what makes you think otherwise?
None have been acknowleged because there aren't any, someone in the monarchy would know about them because they aren't going to ignore any children born to Edward and Wallis are they.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #549  
Old 08-02-2010, 05:19 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by qui mal y pense View Post
One can't help but remember the 'lovely' pictures of the Windsors making nice to Hitler. The course of history might have been very different had E been king. I doubt the royal family would ever have acknowledged any illegitimate heirs. I can't recall any being acknowledged in the last century... and I'm sure they're out there somewhere.
To be fair here Edward was one of many people who made 'nice' to Hitler in in the 1930s, including members of the aristocracy and the American wealthy elite. The difference really is that most of them denounced Hitler sometime in late 38, 39 or early 40 whereas Edward and a few others don't seem to have done so until later. Remember that Lord Halifax, for instance, was for a negotiated peace with Hitler in 40 and he almost became Britain's PM - how different for the world had that happened. When Chamberlain stood down as PM there werew only two candidates - Churchill and Halifax who had the support of the Conservative Party, the palace and even teh Labour Party believed they could work with him. Fortunately he didn't fully press his credentials and Chamberlain was able to recommend Churchill as his successor.
Lord Halifax tried to negotiate peace with the Nazis - Telegraph
E. F. L. Wood, 1st Earl of Halifax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The point behind including this information is to show that Edward wasn't alone in supporting much of Hitler's ideas in the 30s.
Reply With Quote
  #550  
Old 09-29-2010, 08:19 AM
isayoldboy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 34
It's true that Edward wasn't the only person to support Hitler at this time. But weren't some in the government supportive of appeasement, but not necessarily Hitler himself?

Certainly not everyone in the government was immediately wary of Hitler -- Churchill made it his "thing" toward the end of his "wilderness years" to make public the dangers of German rearmament. He faced a lot of opposition for doing this.

The Duke and Duchess of Windsor visited Hitler in 1937. Yet Halifax visited Hitler in 1936 and seemed quite impressed with him. So Edward wasn't the only person to be doing this sort of visit.

It seems quite ambiguous to me -- how far Edward VIII would have supported Hitler and how different his views were to other people in government at the time. Perhaps he became a scapegoat for those who supported Hitler but then moved on as it became obvious war was imminent. Or maybe he did have views that were sympathetic to the Nazis. It's hard to tell.

As an aside, it seems that every time I read something about Edward VIII lately I discover something downright nasty. According to his Wiki article (not the best source, I know), when he was informed that the PM of Australia had voiced opposition to his marriage to Wallis Simpson he said that there were "not many people in Australia" and that their opinion didn't matter. Australia's population at the time was small, but still. You silly little man.

The reference for that quote is Sarah Bradford's book on George VI, by the way. Has anybody read it? I'm beginning to think I should, as a lot of resources about this time period refer to it.
Reply With Quote
  #551  
Old 09-29-2010, 08:32 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 11,510
The horrors of the Great First War did lead many to look for appeasement. I think I have that book by Sarah Bradford, and yes I did hear the Australia statement by Edward VIII.

He definitely did Britian and the world a favor by abdicating IMO. We should really be thanking Wallis!
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #552  
Old 09-29-2010, 12:53 PM
isayoldboy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
The horrors of the Great First War did lead many to look for appeasement.
Yes, and is it any wonder? People wanted to find meaning in the staggering death toll. Another war just over twenty years later didn't seem acceptable.

A few Edward & Wallis books were mentioned up-thread, here. I just read some of The people's king on Google Books to feel out if it's worth reading or not. I immediately disliked the beginning: Edward striding manfully through an abandoned steelworks as a saviour of the working class.

The author treated the thousands of letters of support that Edward received as evidence of something, too, rather breathlessly I thought. Of course a large proportion of the population supported Edward. He was the King!

It seems very hard to find an even-handed account of this whole affair. Edward was either the people's prince (see above) or a cocktail-swigging wastrel. His brother was either a dull waste of space or a man who struggled through his extreme shyness. Wallis was either a misunderstood American who bucked convention, or a merciless gold-digger. It goes on.

The image of Edward as the people's king is too one-sided for me. He may have toured industrial areas, but so did his brother, who had the misfortune of being far less sure of himself. I think away from the crowds Edward showed real contempt for his subjects, and that's a far better measure of his ability to be king. If Edward really wanted to be King, he could have agreed not to marry Wallis. I'd like to know how taking the "easy way out" fits into that argument.

Edward VIII was certainly a complex man and like his brother his personality was shaped by his troubled relationship with his father. He was not a saint. Just how good a king he would have made obviously depends on how you interpret things. I think Wallis did the world a favour.
Reply With Quote
  #553  
Old 09-29-2010, 03:35 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,215
I've read it, or at least most of it. I'd say that it's very good. Bradford is thorough and unbiased. Another excellent book is A SPIRIT UNDAUNTED by Robert Rhodes James. I'd highly recommend James's book about George VI for anyone who's interested in the King's work with his government and his political (in the non-party sense of the world) role during WWII.


Quote:
Originally Posted by isayoldboy View Post
The reference for that quote is Sarah Bradford's book on George VI, by the way. Has anybody read it? I'm beginning to think I should, as a lot of resources about this time period refer to it.
Reply With Quote
  #554  
Old 09-29-2010, 06:03 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
I've read it, or at least most of it. I'd say that it's very good. Bradford is thorough and unbiased. Another excellent book is A SPIRIT UNDAUNTED by Robert Rhodes James. I'd highly recommend James's book about George VI for anyone who's interested in the King's work with his government and his political (in the non-party sense of the world) role during WWII.

As an historian and teacher of History I must jump in here and say that there is no such thing as 'unbiased'. Sometimes the bias isn't obvious but it is there in one way or another. Good historians try to be even handed but they are biased. The very fact that they have chosen to research one topic over another shows a bias in favour of that topic to begin with. Bradford is a good historian but is a monarchist and thus the bias actually is in favour of monarchy, even if not blatantly obvious it is there anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #555  
Old 09-29-2010, 06:34 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,215
Well, yes, I suppose that I meant that there's not an obvious bias on Bradford's part. Everyone, even historians and scientists, bring their own preconceived notions to a subject. I would say that Bradford is not in thrall to her subject. She's objective in so far as she isn't a biased and can see her subject's flaws as well as his/her good attributes. I also like her as a serious biographer because she almost always mentions her sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
As an historian and teacher of History I must jump in here and say that there is no such thing as 'unbiased'.
Reply With Quote
  #556  
Old 09-30-2010, 01:46 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,071
I don't care, a good bio. is a good bio. Biased or not, it's up to the reader to discern for themselves.
__________________
"Not MGM, not the press, not anyone can tell me what to do."--Ava Gardner
Reply With Quote
  #557  
Old 09-30-2010, 05:56 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russophile View Post
I don't care, a good bio. is a good bio. Biased or not, it's up to the reader to discern for themselves.

I must disagree.

Bias is there and a reader who doesn't make note of that won't be able to evaluate the biograhpy properly as they won't be able to pick out the areas where the author's personal ideas have influenced what they are writing or even why they have put something in or left something out.
Reply With Quote
  #558  
Old 09-30-2010, 06:05 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,071
My point being: the bias is ALWAYS going to color the biography, I hope the reader is well enough informed to decipher it for themselves.
__________________
"Not MGM, not the press, not anyone can tell me what to do."--Ava Gardner
Reply With Quote
  #559  
Old 09-30-2010, 08:23 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 6,215
Yes, I agree. The more a person reads by various good authors (meaning authors who list sources and attempt to be honest and impartial), the more a person is apt to get the complete picture of someone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russophile View Post
My point being: the bias is ALWAYS going to color the biography, I hope the reader is well enough informed to decipher it for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #560  
Old 09-30-2010, 09:08 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 11,510
Also, if you are like me you are apt to read a lot of books on a particular author. I realize that everyone is not like me. Thus, I have read several books on the Windsors....you can certainly tell who is pro David/Wallis and vice versa.
__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, britain, duchess of windsor, duke of windsor, edward viii, king edward viii, wallis simpson


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duchess of Windsor Jewellery micas Royal Jewels 210 09-03-2017 01:19 PM
The Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson - 3 June 1937 aussiechick12 Historical Royal Weddings 26 05-01-2015 11:42 AM
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Miss Birgitte van Deurs: 8 July 1972 Scott Royal Weddings 15 11-20-2014 10:41 AM
Books on The Duke and Duchess of Windsor Duchess Royal Library 106 07-15-2013 11:49 AM
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester Current Events 1: October 2003-January 2006 A.C.C. Current Events Archive 132 01-13-2006 09:37 PM




Popular Tags
albania best outfit birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess victoria current events denmark fashion poll general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king philippe letizia monarchy news november 2016 october 2016 picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince charles prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince nicholas prince oscar princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen mathilde fashion queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia state visit stephanie succession sweden swedish royal family the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats victoria


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:03 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises