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

[Bundtrock]

My dear Bundtrock,

Not always. From what I've read, Wallis was horrified when Edward first broached marrying her. After everything occurred and after he gave up the throne, she may have felt that she had to get married. She undoubtedly enjoyed the trappings and perks that went with being married to royalty but this marriage alone is not proof positive that she loved Edward.

On the other hand, I also have read that Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother remarked that the Duke and Duchess of Windsor had a good marriage and loved one another. I guess this matter is up for differing viewpoints.

The Duchess certainly had no problem whatsoever seeking two previous divorces prior to her third marriage in 1937, I fail to see why she would have any hesitation in getting a third one had she not been content?

 

[Catherine J]

Is Charles selfish as well because he refused to give up the woman he loved, or is he even more selfish because not only did he refuse to give her up but he also refused to give up his inherited rights?

Apples and oranges.

Yes, Charles refused to give up the woman he loved. But THAT is not what distinguishes Edward VIII from Charles. What separates them is that Charles did not give up his inherited rights and duties. I suspect he would have given up Camilla before he gave up his duty. When push came to shove, the Duke of Windsor found his own personal happiness more important than the many millions of people over whom he held titular leadership. Diana, Princess of Wales suffered the same appalling disease. Edward, as it turns out, was ahead of his time.

 

[miche]

Asking those questions is not the same thing as praising one of the greatest war criminals in human history.

How was she praising him?

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

The Duchess certainly had no problem whatsoever seeking two previous divorces prior to her third marriage in 1937, I fail to see why she would have any hesitation in getting a third one had she not been content?

But according to the article, it was Ernest who sought the divorce, not Wallis. Because he fell in love with her friend.

 

[Bundtrock]

But according to the article, it was Ernest who sought the divorce, not Wallis. Because he fell in love with her friend.

And what difference would that make? She still would be a twice divorced woman in the mid 1930s, what reason would she have for not seeking a third divorce herself, if she was unhappy? Certainly it could do no further damage to her reputation, apparently she did not care for that aspect, she cavorted openly with the Prince of Wales / King Edward VIII while still married to her second husband anyway?

 

[NGalitzine]

The Duchess certainly had no problem whatsoever seeking two previous divorces prior to her third marriage in 1937, I fail to see why she would have any hesitation in getting a third one had she not been content?

Perhaps the idea of becoming the most hated woman in the world was not appealing to her. Had she divorced a man who gave up the throne for her even the cafe society they socialized with would have closed their doors to her.

 

[Zonk]

If I recall correctly, Edward and Ernest had already had a discussion about ending the Simpson marriage without Wallis prior knowledge and/or consent. Can you imagine it...two men deciding to end her marriage? What cheek!

I think Edward mentioned marriage to Wallis but she might not have taken him seriously. I think Wallis cared for Edward but without a doubt he loved her more. I believe there is a saying...there is a loved and a beloved. Well, Wallis was the beloved.

I read in one of many Wallis and Edward books that she stated, it was hard living out the romance of the century. But by the time Edward died, she was equally as devoted to him as he was to her.

 

[Osipi]

The Duchess certainly had no problem whatsoever seeking two previous divorces prior to her third marriage in 1937, I fail to see why she would have any hesitation in getting a third one had she not been content?

I tend to go with what the article said that as she was getting older, beaus would be fewer and harder to find than when she was younger. A woman hits 40 and it naturally starts to sink in she's not a spring chicken anymore and her options are dwindling down.

By the time that their relationship went public, she opted out for the marriage and I really do think they were happy together.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Why does Wallis' gender have to be questioned? Because she wasn't beautiful, had a masculine face and never had children? I just think it's quite a leap to start questioning her gender.
As for WnE, yes I do think they loved each other and were happy with each other; she was definitely the less dependent of the two though. I wonder if a part of Edwards adoration stemmed from her being his catalyst to give up being king and he was greatful to her for that?

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

And what difference would that make? She still would be a twice divorced woman in the mid 1930s, what reason would she have for not seeking a third divorce herself, if she was unhappy? Certainly it could do no further damage to her reputation, apparently she did not care for that aspect, she cavorted openly with the Prince of Wales / King Edward VIII while still married to her second husband anyway?

I think the point of the article was that Wallis was not keen on marrying the (former) King of England. From what I have read in many biographies, this is not such a stretch and it appears to me that Edward was besotted with her, not the other way around. You seem to think that Wallis shed her husbands readily but I think husband #1 was abusive to her, but husband #2 was not. If the article is correct, then Wallis was not the one who pressed for the divorce in order to marry Edward.

Now, did she become fond of Edward or even love him? I believe so but I think she was an intelligent woman and knowingly became involved with him knowing full well that marriage was not in the future, not while he was King anyway. Events happened and I think she became swept up in them. Is this so hard to believe? I don't believe that this was the romance of the century.

 

[Bundtrock]

I tend to agree with you, I fail to understand WHY King Edward VIII simply did not remain on the throne, Wallis remain his mistress, live with him if they so chose, she certainly did before she was divorced the second time, let him lavish her with gifts, take her on trips, give her money, play hostress for him both at Buckingham Palace and elsewhere and enjoy life.

The Government certainly would not have made an issue of it, how could they really, his family might have grumbled but they wouldn't dare cause any kind of scandal and the Press back then kept their mouths shut in the UK. It has always been my impression that the British public will ignore what is not thrust right in their face, especially during that time period.

The path of least resistance which would have gained them pretty much everything they wanted was the one they fled from, ironic.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Wallis was very willing to be his mistress for however long it lasted. I have been unable to read this in a book, but I recall hearing that she got in contact with some in the government and was telling them that she didnt want him to abdicate and was willing to leave. Their marriage lasted a long time, so either something worked well between them; or Wallis refused to embarrass him by leaving him after all he gave up.

 

[American Dane]

I tend to agree with you, I fail to understand WHY King Edward VIII simply did not remain on the throne, Wallis remain his mistress, live with him if they so chose, she certainly did before she was divorced the second time, let him lavish her with gifts, take her on trips, give her money, play hostress for him both at Buckingham Palace and elsewhere and enjoy life.

The Government certainly would not have made an issue of it, how could they really, his family might have grumbled but they wouldn't dare cause any kind of scandal and the Press back then kept their mouths shut in the UK. It has always been my impression that the British public will ignore what is not thrust right in their face, especially during that time period.

I asked this very question a few pages back, see Iluvbertie and Zonk's answers

 

[Tsaritsa]

Bundtrock, you say "they" as if they were both singing from the same hymnsheet and perhaps are missing the point that IMO Edward never WANTED the throne and Wallis was a ready made catalyst, but I feel sure that this would not have been something he would ever have revealed to her and I believe that from the moment he abdicated all her escape routes had been closed. Edward may have sensed that she wasn't as committed to their relationship as he but he put his own needs first-how could he lose her if being married to her was his only way out. I think that his behind the scene dealings were devious, that he bought the full weight of what remained of his position to bear on Ernest, to coerce him into agreeing to the divorce, removing another safety net from Wallis. In the end, I feel that she married him because she had no choice, because she believed he had given up the throne for HER and he allowed her to go on believing it. I also think it likely that, for the rest of their lives he would have used it at those times when he felt her interest in him to be waning-and probably felt so guilty for doing so that he bought her another expensive bauble. Throughout this thread I've always said that IMO theirs was a very onesided love affair and she had never wanted to be married to him, however that doesn't mean she wasn't fond of him-whether or not that fondness had its' basis in truth is anybodys guess.

 

[Russophile]

Wallis was very willing to be his mistress for however long it lasted. I have been unable to read this in a book, but I recall hearing that she got in contact with some in the government and was telling them that she didnt want him to abdicate and was willing to leave. Their marriage lasted a long time, so either something worked well between them; or Wallis refused to embarrass him by leaving him after all he gave up.

WEll how could she? The world would have hated her, the UK already did. However it didn't stop Wallis from having her own melt down with Jimmy Donoghue that Edward had walked in on.

 

[Zonk]

Wallis Simpson, the woman whom Edward VIII abdicated the throne, may still have been in love with her soon-to-be ex-husband, Ernest Simpson, unseen letters have shown.
The American divorcee, who became the Duchess of Windsor, is believed to have been trapped into marrying the king, according to a new Channel 4 programme which examines 15 of her private notes.

Read more: Wallis Simpson letters reveal love for former husband Ernest | Mail Online
​

 

[Bundtrock]

How could she be trapped into marrying the King? She was NOT a citizen of the UK, she was a citizen of the USA, she could have packed her bags and left at any time, whatever the King might have thought or said about the matter. If I remember correctly, she was in FRANCE when the King abdicated, she could have boarded a plane and returned to the US from there and certainly neither the King nor the UK government could have stopped her. She did NOT have to agree to a divorce from Ernest Simpson at all, she could have fought it and in the UK, at that time, what would he have been allowed to do, NAME THE KING as a THIRD PARTY? Oh I don't think so.

Did the woman feel tremendously guilty, beyond a shadow of a doubt, she CHEATED on her husband and the fact that it was with the King does not change that fact in the least.

 

[Zonk]

I don't think Wallis felt guilt at all about cheating. She envisoned herself being the power behind the throne, and really I am not sure Ernest was annoyed by at all either. At least in the beginning --- but than relationship began to affect their marriage -- Wallis wanted to travel with the King, and Ernest had to work, and so they brought Bessie Merryman along. And than Ernest began to look like the cuckold husband.

Well as I previously stated both Ernest and Edward had a conversation with Wallis knowledge where they discussed the Simpson marriage, a potential divorce as well Edward's desire to marry her. I really don't know why she didn't put her foot down, unless she was of the opinion that the train had already left the station. I do believe that Wallis was over her head and thought she could control the situation and realized she couldn't. Don't forget, she knew nothing of English society, had no understanding of the English constitution (nor did the King), and was not aware that their relationship was the talk of the US (British papers really hadn't discussed the relationship in the open). She soon found out she knew nothing of English society, the King didn't know his own consitution, and a big scandal was brewing.

I think she found out about Ernest's affair with Mary Kirk Raffray so she might have been a bit miffed about that. As Mary was a school friend from Baltimore, and they had been friends for years. And she tried to break it off when she went to France before he Abdicated, but Edward said "I will follow you to the ends of the earth." And I think she just gave up, plus some thought he would do something drastic if she rejected him. And again, its 1936 ---- she didn't have a lot of options, Ernest was not rich and had moved on with Mary, Edward was certainly of no obligation (if the relationship ended) to support her, and she had no money of her own.

Basically, their relationship was like that little snowball that rolls down the hill, gathering speed and power and by the time she realized what was up, it was huge and it was too late too move and she became a part of the snowball.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

My dear Zonk,

I agree with your assessment. Reading a sample of the letters set forth in the article, one cannot think that these letters were written by a woman who divorced her husband because she did not love him but instead loved another. I believe events did get out of hand and Wallis probably was overwhelmed by the attention and what people might think if she abandoned the man who gave up a throne for her! People marry for all sorts of reasons: love, convenience, security and sometimes pressure. Not all people are immune from pressure and Wallis may well have capitulated, not only to save face but also to salve the former King's reputation. Can you imagine what might have been if she left France and fled to the United States after Edward gave up the throne?

 

[Bundtrock]

I cannot imagine being married and allowing my mate to cavort, openly or otherwise with a King, Queen, Prince, Princess, Duke, Duchess or any other Royal rank or Commoner. I would not tolerate it for an instant and I do not understand their married mates doing so either.

Since we are talking about that time period and it being a woman who was COMMITTING ADULTERY, let's not pretend it was anything else, what kind of man simply ignores his wife doing that and I feel quite certain others in the aristocracy were well aware of it as well.

I seem to recall that Major Parker Bowles found a similar situation to be intolerable in the latter part of last century?

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

WEll how could she? The world would have hated her, the UK already did. However it didn't stop Wallis from having her own melt down with Jimmy Donoghue that Edward had walked in on.

So even when Wallis didn't want to be queen she is still the evil woman. Whatever, she got her man, whether she married him out of obligation or not they were happy enough together.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I seem to recall that Major Parker Bowles found a similar situation to be intolerable in the latter part of last century?

Andrew Parker Bowles was ok with it. Ernest Simpson was ok with it. Alice Keppel's wife was ok with it; there have been dozens of husbands who have dealt with their wives having affairs with royalty. The same way women have dealt with and looked the other way when their husbands have had affairs with anything that walks.

 

[Zonk]

My dear Zonk,

I agree with your assessment. Reading a sample of the letters set forth in the article, one cannot think that these letters were written by a woman who divorced her husband because she did not love him but instead loved another. I believe events did get out of hand and Wallis probably was overwhelmed by the attention and what people might think if she abandoned the man who gave up a throne for her! People marry for all sorts of reasons: love, convenience, security and sometimes pressure. Not all people are immune from pressure and Wallis may well have capitulated, not only to save face but also to salve the former King's reputation. Can you imagine what might have been if she left France and fled to the United States after Edward gave up the throne?

Jackie Kennedy is quoted as saying (and she might have gotten this from someone else)...your first marriage is for love, your 2nd marriage is for money and your third marriage is for companionship.

Based on what I read on Wallis, some of that is probably true. The Spencer marriage seemed to be of a young girls love mixed in with lust, she was done and out (emotionally and money wise) when she met Simpson, so I think his upper middle class lifestyle afforded her a way out. She enjoyed the perks of being the mistress of the Prince of Wales (and most likely would have enjoyed the perks of jewels and the center of the social circle of being the King's mistress). Bad luck for her that he was determined to marry her. I think she thought they would have their fun, he would marry someone appropriate to be Queen and she would go back to Simpson.

But he fell for her and wouldnt' let her go. As they grew older I would say she got the companionship she was looking for. As I said in a previous post, she is quoted as sayings its hard living the romance of the century. And really, whether she asked for it or not ---- he did give up everything for her.

 

[Bundtrock]

Andrew Parker Bowles was ok with it. Ernest Simpson was ok with it. Alice Keppel's wife was ok with it; there have been dozens of husbands who have dealt with their wives having affairs with royalty. The same way women have dealt with and looked the other way when their husbands have had affairs with anything that walks.

Up and until the point it became a public scandal and as I recall reading some of his friends made questionable remarks? Didn't Major Parker Bowles ask for a divorce?

 

[Renata4711]

APB was a good boy. He acquiesced. His reward: He's still in good odour with the Royals. That's how The System works.

 

[Zonk]

Let's stay on topic...this thread isn't about Andrew Parker Bowles.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In those days many, if not most, upper class marriages were marriages of convenience - to get the right bloodlines and money into the families and not for love.

The rules were 'an heir and a spare' and then you can please yourself - but be discreet - don't make a public spectacle of yourself and everything will be fine - even to the husband accepting younger children as his even though he knew or at least suspected that he wasn't the father.

You are trying to apply modern ideas of marriage onto a model that wasn't the case a century or so ago. If the couple did come to love each other that was a bonus but it was more important that the bloodlines be right.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Also remember how many fathers were ok with pimping out their daughters to the King's of England, France etc.?

 

[NGalitzine]

How could she be trapped into marrying the King?...

Perhaps it is impossible for an American to understand the rules of how British society functioned in the 1930's and to some extent still does function.

"No greater love hath a man than to lay down his wife for his King".

 

[Tsaritsa]

The programme on Channel 4 last night certainly seemed to corroborate my own long held belief that Wallis was never in love with David and tried her best to extricate herself from him. She and Ernest were shown-in less than good light-as players in a game, but perhaps I'm being overly judgemental of them, it maybe that both were swept away by their own rise and rise. One thing is for sure, over the next thirty years, she had plenty of time to reflect the law of unintended consequences.