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

[Gaudete]

Your comment stating that Wallis would have done being Queen extremely well must have many gasping for breath. I mean that sincerely, not sarcastically, because the scale of the animus goes as far as to fault her for being 'ugly'.

Not as Queen but certainly as a consort with a limited public role.

Indulge me for a minute as I wander into alternative history. It's 1950. David has survived his issues with Baldwin, he's relied heavily on Churchill's advice and has gotten through the Second World War as a popular and unifying figure. Britain has just seen huge reforms and everybody is talking about a modern new era. They all know that David has been having a relationship with the long since divorced Wallis Warfield and that one day, he may wish to marry her. The Duke and Duchess of York and their daughters are hugely popular and there is no reason to suggest that the Duke of York and Princess Elizabeth won't follow Edward VIII.

The government accepts that the King has served his country well and agree to a morganatic marriage. Wallis is known as HRH The Duchess of Lancaster. David was crowned in 1937, there'll be no ceremony to crown or anoint his wife as Queen and a clear distinction is made that whilst she is the legal wife and consort of the monarch, she is not his Queen. She takes on a few patronages, she acts as a private hostess for the King as any other consort would. She greets visitors at garden parties, she welcomes visiting heads of state, she lives with the King, she accompanies him on a few royal engagements and makes appearances at a handful of national events. She says nothing publicly and lives a quiet life.

It's impossible for me to say 100% that this would have been popular or possible. The British public are fickle and can switch on people in a flash. But had Wallis been allowed to have that limited role as a royal consort? She entertained well and everybody complimented her on the way she cared for guests to her home. She was articulate and could hold a conversation. She was intelligent and had her own passions and interests but could always appreciate those of other people. That I could see as a possibility. Naturally she would never be able to accompany the King to church events and there would be other duties that wouldn't be suitable for her to carry out.

But that role in itself would have both suited Wallis and avoided the abdication entirely. By 1950, the resentment from the old guard may have softened, the public may have been more amenable. Unfortunately, David spoiled any chance of that by being impatient, insensitive and incompetent. You catch flies with honey, not vinegar. He learned that all too late.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Not as Queen but certainly as a consort with a limited public role.

I see.

Wallis' problem actually was Ernest caving so easily (I assume) to David's demands (oh to be a fly on the wall during that meeting) though maybe he was (like the 'official' story claims) in love with someone else. My question will always be: would Ernest have thrown Wallis over like that had he not been called into a meeting with David? For all these decades it has looked like Ernest just decided to divorce because he was 'fed up' with his wife's dalliance with David and had met someone new (official story) yet we now know it was not that clear-cut. Did Ernest 'fall in love' after the meeting with David? Was that the sum of it? David showed Ernest another path?

What is the kicker is that Ernest made the deal with David without ever checking with Wallis. It appears that while maybe they were not 'in love' they were a 'good fit' as Wallis wrote, they were good friends. So the question stands: is that any way to treat a good friend? I really feel for Wallis on this score. The magnitude of that 'betrayal' of friendship. Had he checked with Wallis, maybe she would have asked him not to do the divorce as her protection (she was clearly fine with his 'on the side'). But she needed the marriage to be genuinely free, able to say yea or nay to David. Simpson doing that deal was really Wallis' undoing. So what was the pressure (or inducement) that David supplied in that meeting with Ernest?

The biggest alternative history scenario is if Wallis never got the divorce.

Indulge me for a minute as I wander into alternative history. It's 1950. David has survived his issues with Baldwin, he's relied heavily on Churchill's advice and has gotten through the Second World War as a popular and unifying figure. Britain has just seen huge reforms and everybody is talking about a modern new era. They all know that David has been having a relationship with the long since divorced Wallis Warfield and that one day, he may wish to marry her. The Duke and Duchess of York and their daughters are hugely popular and there is no reason to suggest that the Duke of York and Princess Elizabeth won't follow Edward VIII.

Interesting, because the 'spin' now is how bad a guy the man was and how he needed to be removed. The story about his politics and all that are the rationales for having his abdication 'sit right'. Britain was 'saved'.

If David never pressed Ernest to divorce, if David remained discreet regarding his mistresses, and if David followed Churchill's advice/instructions (in the end), he would have remained on the throne. Any other scenario would have been treason, not so?

This is marginally off topic, but I have wondered about the Charles/Camilla tapes and the Squidgy tapes in the late 1980's. They are so peculiar. It occurs to me that Charles was already by then clearly a man with his own political views and progressive economic outlook. He could not have been a supporter of Margaret Thatcher's 'austerity' policies. Were those tapes the first salvo in a long game of removing the monarchy altogether? Treason of course, but it had been done before: back room treason to depose a king (1688).

The government accepts that the King has served his country well and agree to a morganatic marriage. Wallis is known as HRH The Duchess of Lancaster. David was crowned in 1937, there'll be no ceremony to crown or anoint his wife as Queen and a clear distinction is made that whilst she is the legal wife and consort of the monarch, she is not his Queen. She takes on a few patronages, she acts as a private hostess for the King as any other consort would. She greets visitors at garden parties, she welcomes visiting heads of state, she lives with the King, she accompanies him on a few royal engagements and makes appearances at a handful of national events. She says nothing publicly and lives a quiet life.

IF Wallis gets the divorce. My hunch is Wallis did not want that life, she was not in love that way with David. She would have preferred marriage to Ernest.

It's impossible for me to say 100% that this would have been popular or possible. The British public are fickle and can switch on people in a flash. But had Wallis been allowed to have that limited role as a royal consort? She entertained well and everybody complimented her on the way she cared for guests to her home. She was articulate and could hold a conversation. She was intelligent and had her own passions and interests but could always appreciate those of other people. That I could see as a possibility. Naturally she would never be able to accompany the King to church events and there would be other duties that wouldn't be suitable for her to carry out.

Agree with the bolded. Wallis seems to have been doomed to be judged by her photographs, and at an exceptionally stressful time for her. She was not a happy woman at her wedding to David. But from all reports she was socially adept at least and shone as a hostess.

But that role in itself would have both suited Wallis and avoided the abdication entirely. By 1950, the resentment from the old guard may have softened, the public may have been more amenable. Unfortunately, David spoiled any chance of that by being impatient, insensitive and incompetent. You catch flies with honey, not vinegar. He learned that all too late.

Interesting scenario, but key to it all is Wallis' real will in the matter., which we have every reason to believe was quite 'other'. Having a fling with the Prince of Wales, and maybe even the King, is one thing, but to marry? I think it's clear she had no intention of going that far with him. She was forced into that chute, by David, no less, via Ernest caving.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If David never pressed Ernest to divorce, if David remained discreet regarding his mistresses, and if David followed Churchill's advice/instructions (in the end), he would have remained on the throne. Any other scenario would have been treason, not so?

They were going to get rid of him - simple as that - how was the only question by the middle of the year.

Treason - maybe but they may very well have had to reveal that he was totally indiscreet and saying things to the wrong people. They would have set him up to be shown to be the traitor himself e.g. sent him a document that then appeared in the wrong hands and thus exposed him that way. The government had successfully had its way in the past and remember that since 1660 it is the government that rules not the monarch so if the government decides someone has to go then that person has to go.

Make no mistakes - Wallis was a convenient excuse but the government were determined that he had to go - even if it meant the whole royal show had to go.

They would have totally destroyed him if necessary.

 

[Lady Nimue]

They were going to get rid of him - simple as that - how was the only question by the middle of the year.

[...]

Make no mistakes - Wallis was a convenient excuse but the government were determined that he had to go - even if it meant the whole royal show had to go.

They would have totally destroyed him if necessary.

Do you have sources for this timeline, Iluvbertie?

I understand that you are expressing yourself with such certitude because of letters you have seen that no longer exist. However, the suggestion is extreme and would need corroboration, as any good journalist would require 3 corroborating witnesses, or documentation, for the claim. Even if your relative's letters were extant, there would still have to be additional evidence for it to fly as fact. Your relative could have been claiming more than what was afoot. You know the problems with these things.

What strikes me is that there is a lot of rubber that has hit the road regarding the abdication. There is definitely an 'official story' about it that pretty much is as you say: 'they' wanted him out, he was indiscreet, the abdication was a relief, etc. The story as stands is a justification for the abdication.

I'm not an historian of the period but from what little I know of British society I don't believe they could have removed 'the whole royal show' at that time (¡930's). Can't imagine the public of those times would have withstood such a change, as it was the abdication (after all) that rocked the world of the common man. David was loved, hence there had to be compelling, persuasive reasons for the abdication. Even so the public reeled, and the new King was up against considerable negative reaction. I would think they would have done everything they could to make it work with David. Just my ill-formed opinion.

They did not have to remove David, I think. There were endless ways they could 'control' his indiscretions, not so? Might your relative's view been an outlier?

 

[Iluvbertie]

My relative was in the government at the time and was one of those who did know what was going on.

This is also what was being taught at University in the 1970s when these letters and other documents were still existing but most have now either been totally destroyed or permanently sealed in the Royal Archives. I was able to use the letters then but my lecturer had heaps of other documents that he had used while studying the issue in the 1950s and went and researched in the private libraries of many of the members of the government of the day. He also interviewed a number of them as well and their stories match the letters I saw.

There have been a number of documentaries on this as well. I used to have copies on video but never bothered moving them to DVD when we stopped teaching either the abdication or any British/European History at all in Australian schools around 2000 - other than how we won WWI.

There is a lot of information out there besides my relatives letters written throughout 1936 and right down to his death about the private discussions on how to remove him - what to do and how to bring him down but all were put aside when Wallis was confirmed as an issue.

 

[Lady Nimue]

False Flag Operation? Dirty tricks?

"Memorable Day has grave but happily harmless sequel. New Colours for the Guards and an impressive speech by His Majesty ... them immediately afterwards a shocking revolver incident on Constitution Hill ... The whole Empire rejoices that no hurt was done to it's devoted Sovereign King Edward VIII."

 

[Lady Nimue]

As a poster says about this documentary: "I think the word 'plot' here is a bit misleading; as if there was a conspiracy to get rid of Edward OUTSIDE of the 'official' story. This show didn't tell us anything we didn't already know: Queen Wallis was unacceptable and therefore Edward had to go. It doesn't show a plot against Edward as much as just a behind-the-scenes look at the mechanics of how they forced the choice on him -- a choice Edward, ultimately, freely made himself. The world already knew that. Not exactly a news flash."

So wondering, Iluvbertie, can you supply a documentary, or refer to book(s), that tells the story of "a conspiracy to get rid of Edward OUTSIDE of the 'official' story"?

 

[Curryong]

Why would there be 'dirty tricks' involved regarding the attempted assassination of King Edward VIII? George McMahon was an obviously unstable individual who was already under investigation by the Security Services in the mid 1930s for making unfounded allegations of gun running by Irish Republican groups and disseminating anti-Semitic literature, among several other things.

Like 99.9% of attempted assassinations of British public figures, McMahon's attempt was foiled. He was disarmed by people next to him in the crowd when he produced a revolver while the King was riding on Constitution Hill. The unfired revolver fell harmlessly to the pavement.

McMahon was one of a large number of pathetic and mentally troubled individuals who attempted to kill British (English) monarchs. None succeeded. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that McMahon was acting in conjunction with or under the orders of anyone else.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Interesting article. I am trying to establish when the meeting between David and Ernest took place.

LINK: https://www.politico.com/states/new...-wallis-simpson-story-told-differently-067223

TEXT: "If the story author Anne Sebba tells in her new book, That Woman: The Life of Wallis Simpson, Duchess of Windsor, is true, then the narrative of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor that has been passed down is very much a myth. The story Sebba tells is more like this: an emotionally and morally stunted prince who never wanted to be king becomes obsessed with a woman who—although she enjoys his attention, the jewelry, and the lifestyle—he essentially has to corner into marriage.

"The trouble with writing about this particular story and this cast of characters is that much of the work that goes into it is purely interpretation of documents written or letters sent by people who knew they were on the historical record, and had an interest in curating their legacies even as they were inventing them. Still, Sebba’s interpretation is credible, and unusual.

[...]

"[T]hroughout her life she was, in the circles she was closest to, often a form of 'that woman,' someone remarkable yet always apart. She was the sort of person who always had the material - the past, the personality - to be a legend, going back to the circumstances of her birth.

"She went to the most prestigious preparatory school in Maryland, Oldfield’s, where she got a reputation for smoking, sneaking out, and having boyfriends. While she displayed a strong and outgoing personality that made her magnetic to some of the girls—in particular her best friend, Mary Kirk—that same disposition offended most adults, including Mary’s family. 'Some of the parents at the time believed that there was something extraordinary about Wallis and that her influence was malign,' Sebba writes.

"It is a description that, if one were to substitute any number of social groups for 'parents,' would accurately describe the reputation Simpson established in many places throughout her life.

[...]

"Wallis was a talented and notorious flirt, lit up by men in a way she never was with women, so much so that Win Spencer’s sister said of her, 'she could no more keep from flirting than breathing.' "


Regarding Simpson -
"The man she finally chose to marry, or who chose her—one comes away with the impression that in all of Wallis’ relationships, it was usually one way or the other, rather than a mutual choosing—was Ernest Simpson, whom she had met in New York through her childhood friend Mary Kirk, now Mary Raffrey. Simpson was already married, but became taken with Wallis and asked her if she would marry him once they were both out of their marriages. She agreed. Simpson was not that rich, nor was he particularly glamorous, and her decision to marry him as well as her continuing affection for him after they were married suggests that, though concerned with social status, Wallis was most interested in security. Ernest fit the bill. He was good-looking, bookish in a way that implied good breeding, and, what did turn out to be his greatest appeal, dependable."

While I take exception to many aspects of Sebba's narrative regarding the couple, there are innumerable nuggets of information that go to round out Wallis' impact on her social circle. She is far more complicated than allowed by many.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Why would there be 'dirty tricks' involved regarding the attempted assassination of King Edward VIII?

My query was directed to Iluvbertie given what she is saying of the government at the time: "Make no mistakes - Wallis was a convenient excuse but the government were determined that he had to go - even if it meant the whole royal show had to go. They would have totally destroyed him if necessary."

I am asking if they would have gone as far as assassination.

 

[Iluvbertie]

My understanding is 'yes' but they wanted to have him walk away by making the position totally untenable for him. Hence Wallis was the excuse. Had it not been that then there would have been something else e.g. sent him on a State Visit and have it made very clear to him that he didn't know what was the relationship between the two nations as he was out of the loop with anything sensitive.

 

[Denville]

Of course they would not have assasitated him. butif he had continued to be indiscreet as he was during his year as King, they would have sidelined him, stopped sending him confidential documents and warned him that he was getting out of his depth. Perhaps eventually he would have been pressured to abdicated...
However while Wallis was the main issue in 1936, as quite simply the public and establishment did not want a twice Divorced American woman as queen, and as Ed was so stubborn that he wanted her and only her and that he wanted to marry her, He was willing, and I think even eager to go.

 

[Lady Nimue]

My understanding is 'yes' but they wanted to have him walk away by making the position totally untenable for him.

Do you have any corroboration for this belief other than a relative's letter from years ago that no longer exists, Iluvbertie? This suggestion is an amazing supposition. Where is the evidence?

Hence Wallis was the excuse. Had it not been that then there would have been something else

Yet Wallis was an issue because of what David did, not anything the government did. I'm just not following this line of thinking. You say there have been documentaries and books about this scenario: can you supply the names and authors?

e.g. sent him on a State Visit and have it made very clear to him that he didn't know what was the relationship between the two nations as he was out of the loop with anything sensitive.

Not sure how this would make the job he would be doing untenable.

 

[Queen Claude]

Interesting article. I am trying to establish when the meeting between David and Ernest took place.

The meeting took place in February 1936 (Anne Sebba) or March 1936 (cheesy documentary).

 

[Curryong]

One thing that doesn't exactly gell with any picture of poor reluctant Wallis being dragged unwillingly to the altar is the evidence of Edward's aides that he was filled with new determination to fight after phone calls and letters from her.

As in this letter, written by her a week after the Abdication, to Edward.

'If they don't get you this thing' (possibly a Civil List pension, money was often on the couple's minds.) 'I will return to England and fight it out to the bitter end. The Coronation will be a flop compared with the story I shall tell the British Press. I will publish it in every paper in the world so the whole World shall know my story.

Your mother is even persecuting me now....On the front page of every paper is a black bordered notice stating that she has never seen me or spoken to me during the past 12 months. I know it is true but she need not persecute me. She could have helped you so much; you, the only son that matters.'

NA MEPO 35/10 Channing to Game, 19th December. Mrs Simpson to Duke of Windsor.

The King Who Had To Go: Edward VIII, Mrs Simpson and the Hidden Politics of the Abdication Crisis: Adrian Phillips, Chapter 22.

 

[Denville]

I think she certainly didn't want him to give up being king, and would rather have been a royal mistress to a King, than wife to an abdicated King..

 

[Curryong]

Well, that prospect involved keeping a extraordinarily needy and easily bored man with no inner resources happy and entertained for the rest of their lives, didn't it?

Nevertheless, once the deed was done they were both determined to get the most out of the situation that they possibly could from the British Govt and the BRF, she just as much if not more than he.

 

[Denville]

I think she had not expected to marry him.. but she had intended to enjoy to the full the privileges of being his mistress as POW and maybe as King for a time. She didn't expect the affair to last forever. She problaby believed that in a few years, she would be "retired" and would return to her old life, with some nice jewels.

But when he got so obsessed with her that he would insist on marriage, she was unsure of what she wanted..
She didn't love him, she was probably comfortable enough with Ernest and felt happier with him, provided she had a degree of freedom.
But she had left Ern to his own devices too long and he was now in love with another woman. So she was pushed towards marriage with Edward. However I think that if Edward had offered her a permanent situation as his mistress in private, while he remained a bachelor king, she would have liked that better than marrying him after he had left the throne, and when their situation was bound to be different to what it was if he had remained king.
I don't think she was more than fond of him, at first and didn't really relish the thought of having to live in exile at least till things blew over and his being so dependent on her.. emiotionally.. so she urged him to hold firm and to try and keep on being king even if it meant that she was just his mistress or at best a morganatic wife.
I think tat his attitude AND hers was that if they DID have to leave the throne, they weren't going to go without getting as much money and if possible good PR (romantic story of King giving up his throne for woman he loved)....

 

[Tsaritsa]

I think her need for financial security was at the heart of what made Wallis who she was. Poverty -and that's entirely relative, of course- and memories of seeing her Mother having having to grovel to Uncle Sol to make ends meet, would undoubtedly have fired her determination to rise above such an existence. Was she so busy chasing it that she failed to see -until it was too late- that she was as dependent on David as had her mother been on Uncle Sol?

 

[Gaudete]

Bear in mind that the Windsors had little choice but to play hard ball for money. David wasn’t allowed to take on paid employment as he was still considered to be a member of the Royal Family. All that was open to them was charging extortionate amounts for interviews but even that didn’t bring in the funds they really needed to support their lifestyle.

It’s certainly the case that after the death of George VI, the Queen Mother began to interfere in the civil list and David and Wallis were not the only ones who found their income slashed because of old grudges. The obvious answer of course was that the Windsors should have lived within their means but I don’t think David ever really had any concept of what real life was. Wallis certainly did but she was escaping that as others have rightly said.

The situation in exile was a messy one, never really clearly defined with no framework to make it work. Bertie promised David enough money to live on if he kept his silence and kept a low profile unless specifically asked to perform some kind of task, e.g the Governor General of the Bahamas. But that agreement wasn’t a legal one, only a gentleman’s agreement between brothers. David got used to it, believed it would always be that way and then found that it was unceremoniously ditched. This doesn’t excuse his behaviour in the way he demanded money of course, but it wasn’t as simple as Wallis being greedy or wanting more cash to play with. It was a complex situation based on handshakes.

 

[Denville]

I think her need for financial security was at the heart of what made Wallis who she was. Poverty -and that's entirely relative, of course- and memories of seeing her Mother having having to grovel to Uncle Sol to make ends meet, would undoubtedly have fired her determination to rise above such an existence. Was she so busy chasing it that she failed to see -until it was too late- that she was as dependent on David as had her mother been on Uncle Sol?

She had a perfectly decent husband, in Ernest Simpson and I'm sure she was not poor. Had she not neglected him to the point where he went to another woman and fell in love, she would have been comfortable enough for life... He clearly was willing to turn a blind eye to affairs provided she didn't go too far....and I don't think she was dependent on Edward particularly. Of course she was financially, since she grew accustomed to a very lavish lifestyle, but she was the dominant one in the marriage. He adored her, and she was IMO frequently irritated by him and his obsessive devotion.. hence her affair of sorts with Jimmy Donahue...

 

[Gaudete]

That’s a very one sided view to take though and it assumes that all was in rosy in the garden with Ernest or that he was a thoroughly decent man who was cuckolded by his gadabout wife. Ernest was hardly as abusive as her first husband but he wasn’t particularly attentive to Wallis around the time she met the King. She could hardly be accused of neglecting Ernest when Ernest himself urged her to get closer to the Prince of Wales. And perhaps he was so willing to overlook her infidelities because he himself had several extra marital affairs.

It isn’t as simple as scarlet women and wronged husbands. But I agree with you that eventually Wallis found David very difficult to live with. Who wouldn’t?

 

[Denville]

yes he had affirs and so did she. That was far from uncommon and Ernest was clearly willing to over look her affairs provided she kept within limits.
as for who would not find David difficult to live with, I think that he was a spoiled selfish difficult man, whom one of his staff saw as having "no soul"... but Wallis did live with him.. She was not IMO in love with him ever tho' I think over the years she did become dependent on him to an extent, because "he was always there", and as she grew older and more frail, she needed him too and slid into a mental fog after he was gone...

 

[Gaudete]

Sadly Wallis never really seems to have got much in return in any of her male relationships. She was frequently being used and when she really needed them to step up, they were often found lacking. It must have been very difficult for her not to look elsewhere when she seemed to have such a talent for picking the wrong men. They were either adult men who behaved like little boys or drunken bullies. Given her rough start in life and her own medical problems that denied her a family, it was always inevitable that Wallis would end up alone.

Hers is quite a tragic tale in many ways but it’s only now that we can see that and empathise. 30/40 years ago we would still have been fed the nonsense of the Clarence House version of events.

 

[Curryong]

Edward and Wallis weren't exactly on their uppers in their retirement. Edward had salted away a very large sum from Duchy funds that he lied to his brother about when the negotiations to sell Balmoral and Sandringham were going on. King George was terribly pained when he found he had been deceived by his brother.

And as far as the Duchess is concerned that doesn't mean we should all swallow wholesale the story of poor charming attractive Wallis, constantly let down by the men in her life, either. There are plenty of examples of Wallis being manipulative, venal and self-centred.

 

[Gaudete]

Of course. Nobody is 100% naughty or nice. But in Wallis’ case, she’s made out to be the devil incarnate which is pretty ridiculous given that we can now appreciate far better the world she was living in. In a society dominated by men, traditional values and religion she wasn’t broken by it. That’s quite an achievement and no doubt took a little bit of manipulation and selfishness to pull off. Not that it excuses everything, I would never suggest it did. But for a lower middle class girl from Baltimore, she didn’t do all that badly when most of her contemporaries would have simply stayed in the first marriage hoping for some kind of quick release. Wallis really was “the Duchess who dared”.

 

[Curryong]

But her whole life became changed by an association with a wealthy and powerful man, having married two other men on the way! In what manner is that challenging the traditional values of her time and achieving things on her own? And there were plenty of women who did gain prominence in the 1920s/30s through their own efforts.

 

[Gaudete]

She’d hardly have been of interest to such men if she wasn’t a fascinating woman in her own right. Many people remark on Wallis’ plain looks and that’s true, she wasn’t conventionally beautiful. But she was interesting, witty, well informed and able to make people feel comfortable in strange surroundings. She was a wonderful hostess but she was also able to sit and have an in depth political discussion which many women regarded as totally off limits even if they had a real desire to express an opinion.

Her life changed when she married David but why did he want to marry her in the first place? If she was just a fly by night good time girl, it’s an obsession that wouldn’t have lasted. But she was much more than that. She had enough talent not only to be desirable company for both men and women but to know that she could do things on her own if she had to. Let’s not forget that Wallis travelled as an independent woman alone before she married Ernest. In China she was practically solitary for the most part and yet she made the best of it. Not an easy thing to do in a country that was deeply anti-Western, anti-women and falling apart at the seams.

 

[Curryong]

Nevertheless, Wallis's lifetime 'achievement' was by an association with a wealthy and powerful man, and one which provoked a damaging constitutional crisis. She wasn't Elizabeth Arden building up a business empire from scratch, Dorothy Hodgkin winning a Nobel prize through her own research and hard work, Amy Johnson flying to Australia from Britain and back on her own.

And when Wallis was in China she became entangled in a love affair with yet another married man! She resembles courtesans of old rather than the women above.

 

[Gaudete]

Nevertheless, Wallis's lifetime 'achievement' was by an association with a wealthy and powerful man, and one which provoked a damaging constitutional crisis. She wasn't Elizabeth Arden building up a business empire from scratch, Dorothy Hodgkin winning a Nobel prize through her own research and hard work, Amy Johnson flying to Australia from Britain and back on her own.

And when Wallis was in China she became entangled in a love affair with yet another married man! She resembles courtesans of old rather than the women above.

Of course, the men who took a fancy to her are totally blameless...

You can't compare Wallis to Elizabeth Arden or Amy Johnson. Their backgrounds, their influences, their personal circumstances - it's apples and oranges. What you have to do is to keep things in the context of Wallis' class, experiences and expectations. Here was a young woman who was expected, like all other women in her social circles, to wear nice clothes and to keep their husbands happy. They were not to have opinions, they were not to speak their minds, they were not to educate themselves. That role was so confining that even if (as Wallis' first husband was) your husband turned out to be a drunken bully, you simply put up with it. That was your lot in life.

Wallis didn't believe in that. She believed that a woman had her own worth and had a right to be treated as an equal. She never considered herself to be a feminist but she spoke very proudly of young women in the 1960s who were seeking out careers for themselves and were getting access to better education. She herself said, "I would have very much liked a career but nice girls from Baltimore didn't have careers. We had husbands". You mention that Wallis had an affair in China with a married man. What you don't mention is that she also spent time studying architecture and interior design there. She attended lectures on Chinese history and even took lessons in Mandarin. These were mens pursuits, restricted to women for the most part. She might not have become a Gladys Aylward type but she used her advantage as a woman travelling alone (something rarely done in the 1920s or even the 1950s come to that) to learn new things which ultimately made her interesting company because she had experiences that were hers and hers alone.

Wallis was never going to find a cure for cancer or solve world hunger but this stuffy idea that she enjoyed sex and was therefore some kind of 'courtesan' (which is just an old fashioned word for classy hooker) is so far off the mark as to be patronising and a little judgemental. Yes, Wallis could have stayed in her first marriage. She could have taken the beatings, she could have worn the right clothes, hosted the right parties and made a name for herself as a middle class American housewife doing useless committee work and attending Easter Parades. And yes, she could have been a "good girl" and played by the conventions and the traditions of keeping her mouth shut and not bothering to try to ever move higher than her gender or class allowed. But that wasn't Wallis.

She was a prototype for the modern woman. Confident, outspoken, well educated and wanting to go places. If the times in which she lived meant she had to play men at their own game and use them to get where she wanted to go, surely that says more about the men involved and the way society worked than it does Wallis? You can't reduce her to this Victorian melodramatic moralising that Baldwin or Lang imposed upon her in the 1930s. She didn't fit in English society because she was everything English women were not. She stood up to men like Baldwin and Lang. She challenged their views with well informed opinions of her own. Baldwin's type liked pretty wallflowers who said little but looked the part. Given the choice between an evening in the company of Wallis or a timid wallflower? I know which I'd rather choose.