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

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think Wallis was a beauty to the different standards of that time. Thin and bony and structured. Princess Mary (The Princess Royal), Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott (The Duchess of Gloucester), Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark (The Duchess of Kent), Princess Louise (The Duchess of Fife), Princess Maud (Queen of Norway), it were all simply of so different type of ladies compared to 2017.

 

[Queen Claude]

I don't think that Wallis was considered a beauty in her time either, although I have seen pictures of her in the 1920s where I can see prettiness but not great beauty. I think it was her stylishness, charm and wit that made her appealing to most, and in the case of Edward, he also liked that she did not kowtow to him.

 

[Denville]

I don't believe anyone ever spoke of her as pretty, handsome or attractive. And I have never heard of any witticisms...or cleverness. I think that she did appeal to Edward because she was outside the British class system and because she twigged that he liked a bit of "lack of formality" and treated him as such..
And I think that she appealed to him in other more complex ways....
but I don't believe that she was ever seen as a beauty or as a witty socialite...

 

[Katrianna]

I've seen a photo of Wallis when she was probably late teens and she was much more attractive than the older Wallis, not beautiful, but her features were much softer and less severe. She also was heavier than in later life, not overweight or even chubby, but not the severe thinness to the point of bony and angular that she favored in later years.
I don't think Wallis had a natural charm, but learned over her life when she could turn on the charm and add a wittiness when it could suit her.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Curious, I looked at Wallis' Wikipedia entry and found this concerning both her attractiveness and wit: "On 17 April 1910, Wallis was confirmed at Christ Episcopal Church, Baltimore, and between 1912 and 1914 her uncle Warfield paid for her to attend Oldfields School, the most expensive girls' school in Maryland. There she became a friend of heiress Renée du Pont, a daughter of Senator T. Coleman du Pont of the du Pont family, and Mary Kirk, whose family founded Kirk Silverware. A fellow pupil at one of Wallis's schools recalled, 'She was bright, brighter than all of us. She made up her mind to go to the head of the class, and she did.' Wallis was always immaculately dressed and pushed herself hard to do well. A later biographer wrote of her, 'Though Wallis's jaw was too heavy for her to be counted beautiful, her fine violet-blue eyes and petite figure, quick wits, vitality, and capacity for total concentration on her interlocutor ensured that she had many admirers.'"

Regarding the (here, on this thread) contested fact of the QM's 'hatred' of Wallis: "According to the wife of former British Union of Fascists leader Oswald Mosley, Diana Mitford, who knew both Queen Elizabeth and the Duchess of Windsor but was only friendly with the latter, the Queen's antipathy toward her sister-in-law may have resulted from jealousy. Lady Mosley wrote to her sister, the Duchess of Devonshire, after the death of the Duke of Windsor, 'probably the theory of their [the Windsors'] contemporaries that Cake [a Mitford nickname for the Queen Mother, derived from her delighted exclamation at the party at which Deborah Devonshire first met her] was rather in love with him [the Duke] (as a girl) & took second best, may account for much.' "

Regarding the Nazi connection: "Years later, Diana Mosley claimed that the Duke and Duchess shared her and her husband's views that Hitler should have been given a free hand to destroy Communism; as the Duke wrote in the New York Daily News of 13 December 1966: 'it was in Britain's interest and in Europe's too, that Germany be encouraged to strike east and smash Communism forever ... I thought the rest of us could be fence-sitters while the Nazis and the Reds slogged it out.' "

This I didn't know: "Both Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Charles visited the Windsors in Paris in the Duke's later years, the Queen's visit coming only shortly before the Duke died."

And this: "Academics agree that she ascended a precipice that 'left her with fewer alternatives than she had anticipated. Somehow she thought that the Establishment could be overcome once was king, and she confessed frankly to Aunt Bessie about her 'insatiable ambitions' ... Trapped by his flight from responsibility into exactly the role she had sought, suddenly she warned him, in a letter, 'You and I can only create disaster together' ... she predicted to society hostess Sibyl Colefax, 'two people will suffer' because of 'the workings of a system' ... Denied dignity, and without anything useful to do, the new Duke of Windsor and his Duchess would be international society's most notorious parasites for a generation, while they thoroughly bored each other ... She had thought of him as emotionally a Peter Pan, and of herself an Alice in Wonderland. The book they had written together, however, was a Paradise Lost." The Duchess herself is reported to have summed up her life in a sentence: 'You have no idea how hard it is to live out a great romance.' "

 

[Curryong]

Wikipedia is hardly considered a first class source of credible information!

It's long been known that Diana Mosley was a main conduit for the canard that Elizabeth was jealous of Wallis because she had wished to marry David herself. This untruth may well have begun with the Duke and Duchess of Windsor themselves.

Diana and her husband were very great friends of the Duke and Duchess in the 1950s/60s and beyond, much less so before WW2 though the two couples were known socially to each other then.

Diana did not know Elizabeth in the years following WW1 when Elizabeth was single (Diana was much too young) and therefore she could not have been any kind of viable witness to what Elizabeth's feelings for David were pre 1923 when she married Bertie.

Moreover, the author who tried to track that vicious assertion down could only track it back as far as the generation below Elizabeth's, in fact the generation to which Diana belonged. Rather notable, that!

So, no pre 1923 letters or documentation in the form of eye witness accounts has yet been produced by you it seems, Lady Nimue, only assertions by a woman who in middle age, after WW2, became a confidante and friend of an embittered Duchess and her vain husband, both of whom preferred to ascribe jealousy as a motive for Elizabeth's dislike rather than their own behaviour. In fact the whole BRF from Queen Mary down were appalled that Edward intended to abdicate the throne for a woman they and many of their courtiers considered nothing more than an adventuress, and those feelings lasted a very long time.

Some pre 1923 gossip in the form of verifiable letters from members of the Royal family, London Society, British aristocracy etc would be great, thankyou. Many of these people produced memoirs later in life and would have letters, diaries etc of post World War One vintage.

It shouldn't be too difficult for you please, to track something authentic down I'm sure, as you seem to feel it was so known in Royal and Society circles at the time. That is BEFORE Elizabeth's wedding or around that time, early 1920s please.

Certainly Charles and the Queen visited the elderly Duke and Duchess in France before David's death. Charles's view of Wallis was in fact far from flattering.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

So Wallis was smart, sharp, witty, goodlooking, knew how to find her way in high society according to contemporary witnesses. These accounts are supported by a simple look in the way she moved in the highest circles, the men and women she befriended, etc.

Of course the Wallis haters will claim the opposite, but when she was a goofy and not so bright pumpkin, of course this would never have brought her in the circles of society she mingled in. Wallis' expensive education was -like that of the Mitford Sisters- aimed on making the best possible progress on the social ladder.

 

[Tsaritsa]

I've seen a photo of Wallis when she was probably late teens and she was much more attractive than the older Wallis, not beautiful, but her features were much softer and less severe. She also was heavier than in later life, not overweight or even chubby, but not the severe thinness to the point of bony and angular that she favored in later years.
I don't think Wallis had a natural charm, but learned over her life when she could turn on the charm and add a wittiness when it could suit her.

I have seen a picture of Wallis as a very young woman. I believe she's wearing something white and lacy with a large picture hat. One word describes how she looks. STUNNING! The pictures of as a (first) bride are equally so.

There seems to have been a question mark surrounding her arrival into the world. According to a biographer, some way short of a full 9 months after her parents' wedding!! It seems that some time lapsed between her birth and it's registration, the reason suggested being that there was indecision about her gender. Certainly, it wouldn't be stretching it to describe her as androgynous. Her hands, which, thankfully, for the fashion of the time, could remain mostly gloved, were both huge and lumpen, in stark contrast to her diminutive shape. I don't think she was ever the epitome of feminine woman but she understood herself well. By her sense of style, coupled with the financial wherewithal to accommodate it, along with a husband whose pleasure it was to see her adorned in spectacularly jaw-dropping -ugly?- jewellery, she managed to outshine all other women in her company.

 

[Lady Nimue]

So Wallis was smart, sharp, witty, goodlooking, knew how to find her way in high society according to contemporary witnesses. These accounts are supported by a simple look in the way she moved in the highest circles, the men and women she befriended, etc.

Of course the Wallis haters will claim the opposite, but when she was a goofy and not so bright pumpkin, of course this would never have brought her in the circles of society she mingled in. Wallis' expensive education was - like that of the Mitford Sisters - aimed at making the best possible progress on the social ladder.

Exactly so. Same with Eleanor Roossevelt. Same for every young woman who attended one of the Ivy League 'sister' colleges in the U.S. in that era (Smith College, Mount Holyoke, Vasser, etc.). Wallis was groomed to make as good a marriage as she could. That was the goal of every woman in that time. No shame in that for them. They had few other options.

To me one must see any individual in the context of their times in order to fully understand them. Wallis remains for me a tragic figure, caught in the grip of the social mores of her time and a slew of unintended consequences.

 

[MARG]

It is easy to buy into the sad story of a misunderstood Wallis but she owned her own "insatiable ambitions" and her affair with David was the pinnacle. She only had second thoughts when she realised what David did not, that they would never allow him to put her on the throne beside him. Second thoughts then? Certainly, but too little too late.

 

[rominet09]

Of course at that time making a good marriage was very important but without playing a goody two shoes (I am human and I made mistakes too) we can see and say she had not a lot of morals.... trying to do one's best is OK but the means o achieving that must be honest and proper..

 

[Denville]

It doesn't strike me that she "tried to do her best" in terms of "doing the right thing". She didn't expect that Edward would marry her, then toyed iwht the idea and then I think realised that she was trapped in a situaiton she had partly created. She had expected the affairs to last a while and then go back to Ernest.. but she had been too public with the affair and left Ern alone too much, and he found someone else. Then she didn't really want to marry Edward but had no real option. She realised after a whle that it wouldn't be allowed fro her to marry him and keep the throne.. so all she could really do, unless she wanted to make a major break, leave him and maybe marry someone else, she had to accept that She was going to marry Edward and he was going to renounce the throne.. but the trap was largely of her own making. If she had been more tactful in the way she handled the affair and her husband, she might have still had the option of returning to him and retiring discreetly into private life...Or she might have just not had the affair at all with Edward..

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I think Wallis liked the (dubious) status of being the Prince of Wales mistress. She didn't read David correctly though and things spun in a direction she didn't intend.

 

[Denville]

It wasn't a dubious status, it certainly gave her a lot of social clout and invitations, provided she had hanlded it well. but she and David were pretty foolish, spending too much time together, going on expensive holidays when the Yorks were at home being happy families and doing their duties. but she misjudged her husband, who was clearly getting fed up with the fact that she was always off with her lover and he was becoming a laughing stock, and he found himself a new love whom he felt better with. And I think that Wallis didn't really care that much for David, as there were rumours that she had another affair at the same time.. She was lucky in one way that the Press were defernetail then, and her behaviour wasn't all over the papers. but I think she didn't really want to marry David, then thought that she might do so and it would mean she was either queen or say "duchess of Lancaster".. then realised that she was NOT going to be able to say with her husband NOR to marry David and at least partly share his Royal position. And she was stuck with a marriage to a man she didn't care that much about, and more or less permanent exile from England, and knew that if she had split up iwht hm, she would look bad.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

It wasn't a dubious status, it certainly gave her a lot of social clout and invitations, provided she had hanlded it well. but she and David were pretty foolish, spending too much time together, going on expensive holidays when the Yorks were at home being happy families and doing their duties. but she misjudged her husband, who was clearly getting fed up with the fact that she was always off with her lover and he was becoming a laughing stock, and he found himself a new love whom he felt better with. And I think that Wallis didn't really care that much for David, as there were rumours that she had another affair at the same time.. She was lucky in one way that the Press were defernetail then, and her behaviour wasn't all over the papers. but I think she didn't really want to marry David, then thought that she might do so and it would mean she was either queen or say "duchess of Lancaster".. then realised that she was NOT going to be able to say with her husband NOR to marry David and at least partly share his Royal position. And she was stuck with a marriage to a man she didn't care that much about, and more or less permanent exile from England, and knew that if she had split up iwht hm, she would look bad.

The "dubious" was my observation, hence being in parentheses ?

 

[Denville]

I see. But it was something that could have worked out very nicely for her, had Edward been less obsessive.. and had he not been just at the point of becoming King. She might have had a nice affair, made friends, got some jewellery, been a society grandee, and then when it ended, gone back to her married life.. and normality..

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I see. But it was something that could have worked out very nicely for her, had Edward been less obsessive.. and had he not been just at the point of becoming King. She might have had a nice affair, made friends, got some jewellery, been a society grandee, and then when it ended, gone back to her married life.. and normality..

As I said, Wallis misread David. She lost control of the situation.

 

[Furienna]

I really don't think she was attractive at all. Maybe she had a charm in person that made up for her bony plain figure and face.. but its hard to see it. I think she was interesting to British upper class society when she came into it, as an American.. but I've never heard of her being funny or clever or witty, which might make up for the lack of great physical beauty. The QM grew plump and lost her looks but she was a very pretty girl.. and while I wouldn't say she was very clever, she did seem to have a charm and liveliness and joie de vivire that made people find her attractive..

I believe that many people don't find Wallis that attractive because they don't like her as a person (she still has a bad reputation with so many people). But as far as I can tell, she was pretty enough in her prime.

 

[Denville]

I'd say I was the other way round,that when she was just an ordinary socialite, many people found her plain.. but when it was known that she was the Princes' ladyfirend, people began to speak of her as smart and attractive.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I'd say I was the other way round,that when she was just an ordinary socialite, many people found her plain.. but when it was known that she was the Princes' ladyfirend, people began to speak of her as smart and attractive.

An "ordinary" socialite does not live in a grand house with servants and does not mingle in the highest echelons of society, able to come in close contact with someone as the future King.

Wallis' best friend, Lady Telma Furness was the sister of Gloria Vanderbilt. Then you are really in "deep NY high society". In the end, all of them are "socialites" anyway. But Wallis really was not that "ordinary", her network was too exclusive to use that term.

 

[Denville]

wel yes they do because that's what socialites do. They are wealthy, have servants and mix in Society, and organise social functions. not all in te UK would have access to royal cirlces but some would. When Wallis was just a rich woman who enjoyed a comfortably wealthy social life, I think that most people considered her plain. When she met the Prince and became his mistress she began to be admired as more attractive, smart looking etc.

 

[Andy T]

Thought: As we know, on his accession, George VI's first act was to confer the title of Duke of Windsor on his brother, and to confirm his retention of the HRH.


"He will henceforth be known as His Royal Highness The Duke of Windsor."

Wallis Simpson became Duchess of Windsor on her marriage the following year but was stuck, much to their displeasure, so we're told, with "Her Grace" because George VI refused to make her an HRH.

Theoretically, could Edward VIII, anticipating his abdication and marriage, have conferred the title of Duke of Windsor upon himself while he was still King and stipulated that his future wife would be styled as HRH the Duchess of Windsor in the way that the Queen has declared that all William's future children will enjoy the style of HRH?

Would he, in his abdication, have been obliged to renounce all styles and titles anyway?

I assume nothing would have prevented George VI from reversing the decision on his accession but it would have been even more delicate to remove something that had already been given than to refuse something that had not been given before.

 

[Tsaritsa]

Thought: As we know, on his accession, George VI's first act was to confer the title of Duke of Windsor on his brother, and to confirm his retention of the HRH.


"He will henceforth be known as His Royal Highness The Duke of Windsor."

Wallis Simpson became Duchess of Windsor on her marriage the following year but was stuck, much to their displeasure, so we're told, with "Her Grace" because George VI refused to make her an HRH.

Theoretically, could Edward VIII, anticipating his abdication and marriage, have conferred the title of Duke of Windsor upon himself while he was still King and stipulated that his future wife would be styled as HRH the Duchess of Windsor in the way that the Queen has declared that all William's future children will enjoy the style of HRH?

Would he, in his abdication, have been obliged to renounce all styles and titles anyway?

I assume nothing would have prevented George VI from reversing the decision on his accession but it would have been even more delicate to remove something that had already been given than to refuse something that had not been given before.

I can't imagine that he'd have thought that far ahead. His only concern was his obsession with her and how he could best and soonest bring about the conclusion to it which satisfied him. I don't believe he gave a thought to what she may have wanted. His own needs appear to have been paramount.

 

[Denville]

Idont know if he could have done such a thing, as if he was giving up the throne, and all Royal honours, how could he say "except for being HRH the DOW nad my wife being HRH as well??
He would have to renounce it all.
And I think that George VI was so hot against the idea of "that woman" being a royal duchess that he would have if necessary gone to Parliament or whatever he had to do to remove it. David was only given the royal dukedom to prevent him from standing for parliament as he could have done had he become a commoner.

 

[Andy T]

Idont know if he could have done such a thing, as if he was giving up the throne, and all Royal honours, how could he say "except for being HRH the DOW nad my wife being HRH as well??
He would have to renounce it all.
And I think that George VI was so hot against the idea of "that woman" being a royal duchess that he would have if necessary gone to Parliament or whatever he had to do to remove it. David was only given the royal dukedom to prevent him from standing for parliament as he could have done had he become a commoner.

Re George VI's reaction (with his wife firmly behind him), I think you're right, Denville. My question is really a theoretical one, though. Clearly, Edward's abdication had to include/cover all styles and titles pertaining to his constitutional role/position as head of state, so not just the crown (and style of His Majesty) but also the Duchy of Lancaster, Duke of Normandy Lord of Man, Emperor of India, and so on.

However, could he have granted himself a "normal" title/Dukedom, separate from the role of Sovereign, which he could have kept in the same way that he retained various other honours (Knight of the Garter, for example) after his abdication? Similarly, his rank as a Prince, and the style of HRH, came from his birthright as the son of a monarch, and was independent of his position as Head of State.

Maybe this is one of those scenarios in which the question would never normally arise, so there is no real precedent and no clear answer.

 

[Queen Claude]

I don't think that Edward anticipated that Wallis would not get the HRH styling. There were other things he did not anticipate like, after a brief exile, he expected to be a working prince / active member of the BRF and that did not happen either.

 

[Gaudete]

The reason the Duke probably never anticipated Wallis being denied the HRH style was because it gave the couple what they had asked for and had been denied - a morganatic marriage. Of sorts. It was a shabby thing to do but we know where that particular demand came from and why it was so readily given. I think David was foolish to think he would ever be allowed to live in the UK or carry out royal duties but not to allow his wife her proper style was very mean spirited and more than a little hypocritical.

 

[Denville]

I don't think that Edward anticipated that Wallis would not get the HRH styling. There were other things he did not anticipate like, after a brief exile, he expected to be a working prince / active member of the BRF and that did not happen either.

I think that's probably true, Q Claude. I think that he wanted out but iddn't really really realise the implications. That there could only be ONE king and that the new King wasn't likely to want him hanging around giving advice or deciding that in a few months- he, David, would do the odd engagement when he felt like it and still be a prince if not a king. So he didn't really think far enough ahead. As I recall, he had to be dissuaded by George VI from ringing him up every week and giving him advice and so on.
he just didn't see that the whole British establishment and his family felt that he had let them down and they didn't want him coming back when it pleased him..
ANd to the other poster Andy? He could have granted himself an ordinary dukedom - but that would only leave him and Wallis as "your Grace".
What really seems to have happened was that George VI said that "as the son of a Duke, which he was, even after he'd given up his royal honours, he could stand for Parliament and that he might be mischieveous enough to do that..to embarrass the Royals.
so he made him the Royal Duek of Windsor..but he said that his wife would only be Your Grace.. which was a bit iffy, but in the RF's defence, they were appalled and angry,
they also felt that this marriage might not last and then Wallis might go around still calling herself "Your Royal Highness the Duchess of Wndsor" marrying some lounge lizard and expecting to be treated as semi royal in café society.

 

[Spheno]

ANd to the other poster Andy? He could have granted himself an ordinary dukedom - but that would only leave him and Wallis as "your Grace".

Obviously, he could not grant himself a peerage/title. Any peerage merges in the Crown when it's holder is a king.

 

[Denville]

well it would not solve the problem anyway because clearly what buged David was - when he did get the title that his wife wasn't sharing his HRH.