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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Curryong said:
I didn't say that David wanted single girls as mistresses, or that it was possible for him to have had them (though I think he may well have slept with Poppy Baring.)

What I said in the previous post was that while David remained a bachelor and before he fell deeply in love with Wallis, there was always a chance that a charming and witty English or foreign noble woman could have caught his eye.

If he had married someone like that then (as happened with other royals) his married mistresses would have faded into the background. Not every English or foreign woman in Edward's circle was married by the age of 21. There were suitable single women around in their mid to late twenties or even early thirties.
Click to expand...
Who is Poppy Baring?
 
Poppy was the daughter of a wealthy English banker, and a Bright Young Thing. She had the reputation of being 'fast' and later had a serious affair with George Duke of Kent. The Duke of York was also attracted to her. In both cases Queen Mary discouraged marriage. Poppy was a very early girlfriend (early 1920s) of the Prince of Wales.

This book speaks about her a bit.

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...=poppy Baring and the Prince of Wales&f=false
 
When he was Prince of Wales, would you say that Edward demonstrated a commitment to academia when he was installed as Chancellor of the University of Wales in 1921?

Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon first met Edward, Prince of Wales at a dance Viscountess Coke hosted in March 1918 on behalf of her husband Thomas.

Duke and Duchess of Windsor entered the government building in Nassau on August 18, 1940.
https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-d...e-government-building-in-nassau-50017659.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous: Absolutely delightful that Wallis baked a royal birthday cake for Prince Edward!
 
I wonder what Wallis and the Queen are saying to each other
 
Last edited:
Denville said:
I'd hardly call them excesses, and while he grew neglectful of royal duties when he became King, I don't think he was bad at the royal job, when he was POW. He was finding it increasingly boring and sometimes didn't work hard at it… but he had done a lot of tours as POW...
Click to expand...

Edward VIII would have been a fine king if they had let him stay in the job. A remarkably biased version of his character and behaviour has been fabricated to justify pushing him out from the role of sovereign which was his correct destiny. He would have settled into the role, made some welcome and overdue changes and been a loyal and caring monarch overseeing the end of Empire and the emergence of the commonwelth. During his reign, the Queen would likely not have come to the throne till the 1970s and therefore she would probably have had the chance to enjoy a lovely, pressure-free home life - albeit as heir to the throne.
 
Even before the abdication crisis " David" had shown himself to be self absorbed, frivolous, averse to duty and responsibility.The concept of sacrifice seemed completely alien to him.

He was also a rather ignorant racist.

This would not have boded well for a King-
Emperor who was destined to rule over an Empire where close to at least two thirds of his subjects were people of color.

Fate and Providence worked hand in hand to keep him away from the Throne, especially considering what has come to light about the activities of he and his wife in the war years.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RJC
rob2008 said:
Edward VIII would have been a fine king if they had let him stay in the job. A remarkably biased version of his character and behaviour has been fabricated to justify pushing him out from the role of sovereign which was his correct destiny. He would have settled into the role, made some welcome and overdue changes and been a loyal and caring monarch overseeing the end of Empire and the emergence of the commonwelth. During his reign, the Queen would likely not have come to the throne till the 1970s and therefore she would probably have had the chance to enjoy a lovely, pressure-free home life - albeit as heir to the throne.
Click to expand...

I fear the outcome of WWII may have had a different ending. There was a bit too much sympathy and admiration for that Hitler fellow.
I’ve read the biographies-lots of them.
 
rob2008 said:
Edward VIII would have been a fine king if they had let him stay in the job. A remarkably biased version of his character and behaviour has been fabricated to justify pushing him out from the role of sovereign which was his correct destiny. He would have settled into the role, made some welcome and overdue changes and been a loyal and caring monarch overseeing the end of Empire and the emergence of the commonwelth. During his reign, the Queen would likely not have come to the throne till the 1970s and therefore she would probably have had the chance to enjoy a lovely, pressure-free home life - albeit as heir to the throne.
Click to expand...

Even his father felt he wasn't up to the job and he had been the King through a war.

My grandmother's cousin was in the cabinet in 1936 and he was adamant that Edward was simply not up to the job and that he was a security risk. The government couldn't trust him not to leak information (I am not getting that information from biographies but from his letters to my grandmother after the crisis in which he told her some of the things that others think are 'fabricated' such as his disloyalty to the UK.

The best thing to happen to Britain was the decision the government made about Easter time 1936 to find a way to remove him. Wallis was a godsend but if she hadn't come alone in the way that she did they would have found some other way to remove him.

His subsequent actions and letters show where his sympathies lay and it wasn't with Britain.
 
Last edited:
rob2008 said:
Edward VIII would have been a fine king if they had let him stay in the job. A remarkably biased version of his character and behaviour has been fabricated to justify pushing him out from the role of sovereign which was his correct destiny. He would have settled into the role, made some welcome and overdue changes and been a loyal and caring monarch overseeing the end of Empire and the emergence of the commonwelth. During his reign, the Queen would likely not have come to the throne till the 1970s and therefore she would probably have had the chance to enjoy a lovely, pressure-free home life - albeit as heir to the throne.
Click to expand...

He was more concerned, during the war with his own comfrort and status and that of his wife, than with the fate of his native country. Even Winston Churchill who had had a romantic sympathy for his love affair, became impatient with him, when he himself had a war to fight and all Edward could do was bleat about his wife having HRH. He showed no sign of settling into the role of king, since he was involved with Wallis during his year as King...and was largely preoccupied with finding a way to marry her. and As others have said, he was definitely pretty racist, even by the standards of the time and showed little respect for the cultures of other members of the empire/commonwealth... He was a pretty poor Gov of the Bahamas during the war. (there was alos the little issue of visiting Hitler and so on). Im afraid that he did flrt with treason during the war...
 
Iluvbertie said:
Even his father felt he wasn't up to the job and he had been the King through a war.

My grandmother's cousin was in the cabinet in 1936 and he was adamant that Edward was simply not up to the job and that he was a security risk. The government couldn't trust him not to leak information (I am not getting that information from biographies but from his letters to my grandmother after the crisis in which he told her some of the things that others think are 'fabricated' such as his disloyalty to the UK.

The best thing to happen to Britain was the decision the government made about Easter time 1936 to find a way to remove him. Wallis was a godsend but if she hadn't come alone in the way that she did they would have found some other way to remove him.

His subsequent actions and letters show where his sympathies lay and it wasn't with Britain.
Click to expand...


There cannot be any final agreement about the internal politics of the cabinet and the Royal household in 1936. Some thought Prince Albert would not be up to the job and there was apparently manoeuvring just to find a suitable successor to George V. Nothing new - people were afraid the dissolute and hedonistic Prince Albert Edward would harm the monarchy after Victoria's reign. Once in post if a sovereign has loyalty and support from staff and family those around him/ her, they will do ok. EdVIII simply had frightened people around him who could not overcome their fear and so conspired to end his reign. That is as valid a reading of the situation as demonising him by relying heavily on attributions and hearsay.

The monarchy is an institution and not a personality. A sovereign depends on a loyal support network to regulate him/ her. They are human, when they dont have it, they do and say all kinds of foolish things. As Duke of Windsor he might have been 'set free' to give voice to the appeasment policy that was shared by his family and the upper classes. EdVIII's problem is that he loved the British people more than its ruling class.
 
There were massive concerns about Edward BEFORE he became King due to the way he had behaved on overseas tours. The cabinet were convinced by April that he had to go as it was a SECURITY RISK ... he wasn't taking proper care of 'secret' documents for instance. That wasn't a matter of having 'loyal staff'. That was him not caring about his country. He let foreign nationals read documents. How did the government find out ... the content of 'top secret' documents which were sent to him became the topic of conversation at dinner tables. The only way that information could have reached the places it did was if it came from him.

The cabinet were determined - he had to go. They were prepared to change the succession rules if necessary to put a different King on the throne but they weren't going to allow a national security risk to remain in position of Head of State. Edward was loyal to one person and one person only - Edward. He couldn't care less about the people so long as he had his money and hedonistic lifestyle.

The cabinet were so concerned from around June onwards they weren't even sending him all the top secret and confidential documents. He had to be kept in the dark for the sake of the nation's security.

By the end of 1936 there were very few people in government, parliament or the upper circles who were privy to what had been happening who weren't pleased to see him go.

He had to be sent to the Bahamas to keep him away from potentially being a complete traitor to his country. He didn't care.

I think there can be a final agreement about the cabinet as they were agreed he had to go. It wasn't one or two men who made that decision but the entire cabinet ... some wanted to not only remove Edward but the monarchy itself while others wanted to have a 'more personable' king than they though Albert would be but they were determined he had to go.

That is well known. The big question over the summer and autumn was how could they government remove him without removing the monarchy itself and making the country a republic.

If his father was hoping something would happen to him so Bertie and Lillibet would end up as the King and then the Queen and he said that to enough people that the government knew that (and they did) it shows just how bad he was.

Victoria had her fears about her son's suitability but never once hoped he would die or something else happen to stop him being in that position. George V did that.
 
The Duchess of Windsor really stands out in her widows weeds and full length mourning veil.
 
rob2008 said:
There cannot be any final agreement about the internal politics of the cabinet and the Royal household in 1936. Some thought Prince Albert would not be up to the job and there was apparently manoeuvring just to find a suitable successor to George V. Nothing new - people were afraid the dissolute and hedonistic Prince Albert Edward would harm the monarchy after Victoria's reign. Once in post if a sovereign has loyalty and support from staff and family those around him/ her, they will do ok. EdVIII simply had frightened people around him who could not overcome their fear and so conspired to end his reign. That is as valid a reading of the situation as demonising him by relying heavily on attributions and hearsay.

The monarchy is an institution and not a personality. A sovereign depends on a loyal support network to regulate him/ her. They are human, when they dont have it, they do and say all kinds of foolish things. As Duke of Windsor he might have been 'set free' to give voice to the appeasment policy that was shared by his family and the upper classes. EdVIII's problem is that he loved the British people more than its ruling class.
Click to expand...
he didnt' love anyone but himself. He had chances to redeem himself after his abdication, such as being Governor of the Bahamas but did not do a good job.
 
rob2008 said:
Edward VIII would have been a fine king if they had let him stay in the job. A remarkably biased version of his character and behaviour has been fabricated to justify pushing him out from the role of sovereign which was his correct destiny. He would have settled into the role, made some welcome and overdue changes and been a loyal and caring monarch overseeing the end of Empire and the emergence of the commonwelth. During his reign, the Queen would likely not have come to the throne till the 1970s and therefore she would probably have had the chance to enjoy a lovely, pressure-free home life - albeit as heir to the throne.
Click to expand...

Oh I couldn't disagree more. Sure as PoW he at times showed a real caring for people, but generally speaking he was a gadabout and didn't care a whit to do the work required of him. Then there is the little fact that he was a Nazi sympathizer - I don't think I need to say anything else. He wasn't a patch on his younger brother, who became a greatly admired and beloved king.
 
Last edited:
To be fair, he did express some concern for the plight of people who were suffering because of the Depression - and it really was very bad here in Northern England, and in parts of Wales and Scotland too. But he certainly had Nazi sympathies, and he said after the war, even when people knew about the Holocaust, that Britain should have stayed out of it. And he did lead a hedonistic lifestyle - OK for a few years when he was young, but he hadn't changed even when he was in his 40s and he was king. He would have been a disaster as a wartime king.
 
Alison H said:
To be fair, he did express some concern for the plight of people who were suffering because of the Depression - and it really was very bad here in Northern England, and in parts of Wales and Scotland too. But he certainly had Nazi sympathies, and he said after the war, even when people knew about the Holocaust, that Britain should have stayed out of it. And he did lead a hedonistic lifestyle - OK for a few years when he was young, but he hadn't changed even when he was in his 40s and he was king. He would have been a disaster as a wartime king.
Click to expand...

When I was a kid, I thought the story of the Windsors was the greatest love story ever; that changed when I got old enough to learn about the British history/WW II. David/Edward VIII was selfish, self-indulgent and everything his father said he was and worried he’d become. His Nazi sympathies are sickening, frankly. Disaster is putting it mildly. Fortunately Bertie was everything his brother was not
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJC
Betsypaige said:
When I was a kid, I thought the story of the Windsors was the greatest love story ever; that changed when I got old enough to learn about the British history/WW II. David/Edward VIII was selfish, self-indulgent and everything his father said he was and worried he’d become. His Nazi sympathies are sickening, frankly. Disaster is putting it mildly. Fortunately Bertie was everything his brother was not
Click to expand...

His concern for the poor was pretty superficial.. he said that "something must be done" about unemployment, when he had decided to give up his throne..and he was a disaster during WWII, flirting with treason, and didn't think that Hitler was a bad chap, even after the war. He did an OK job as Prince in the 1920s but he became bored with the Royal job, by the time he was nearing the throne...
 
He would have been a political king & probably have overstepped his remit causing a crises at some point.

His brother was definitely the better man although he too made mistakes. When Chamberlain returned from Munich the king invited him onto the palace balcony in a blatantly partisan show of support for a pm. Goodness knows what David would have done if he'd still been king in 1938. Doesn't bear thinking about.
 
Durham said:
He would have been a political king & probably have overstepped his remit causing a crises at some point.

His brother was definitely the better man although he too made mistakes. When Chamberlain returned from Munich the king invited him onto the palace balcony in a blatantly partisan show of support for a pm. Goodness knows what David would have done if he'd still been king in 1938. Doesn't bear thinking about.
Click to expand...


You're right - I'd rather not think what would have happened had he been King; world history could very well have changed. I shudder to think about those changes.
 
Betsypaige said:
You're right - I'd rather not think what would have happened had he been King; world history could very well have changed. I shudder to think about those changes.
Click to expand...

He would have been removed in some unprecedented constitutional act that might even have led to to the establishment of a republic. The other possibility might have been a regency similar to the post ww1 Hungarian government under General Horthy (but obviously a democratic version!).
 
Durham said:
He would have been removed in some unprecedented constitutional act that might even have led to to the establishment of a republic. The other possibility might have been a regency similar to the post ww1 Hungarian government under General Horthy (but obviously a democratic version!).
Click to expand...

I don't think that David would have changed the fate of nations, really. If he had stayed as King, I think he might have been pressured into abdication iwhtin a few years because of his erratic and lazy behaviour. If he had been King when Hitler started war, and the Allies had won, again he would certainly have had to abdicate because he would have problaby been seen as "friendly to the enemy".. Mabye the monarchy would have ended, or it might have been like Belgium where the King had to go and the throne went ot the next heir...
 
Denville said:
I don't think that David would have changed the fate of nations, really. If he had stayed as King, I think he might have been pressured into abdication iwhtin a few years because of his erratic and lazy behaviour. If he had been King when Hitler started war, and the Allies had won, again he would certainly have had to abdicate because he would have problaby been seen as "friendly to the enemy".. Mabye the monarchy would have ended, or it might have been like Belgium where the King had to go and the throne went ot the next heir...
Click to expand...

Yes, that all sounds very plausible.

On the other hand a crises might have come about if he had refused to abdicate. James ii was declared to have abdicated but he had already fled the country. A monarch who refused to go really would be a constitutional nightmare.
 
Durham said:
Yes, that all sounds very plausible.

On the other hand a crises might have come about if he had refused to abdicate. James ii was declared to have abdicated but he had already fled the country. A monarch who refused to go really would be a constitutional nightmare.
Click to expand...

I doubt if he would have refused. He was happy to go over Wallis.. except when he realised that it was really "Im not king anymore".. that he may have had a few doubts.
 
Denville said:
I doubt if he would have refused. He was happy to go over Wallis.. except when he realised that it was really "Im not king anymore".. that he may have had a few doubts.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're right about that.

It does raise the intriguing question of what would happen if some monarch ever did refuse to go but I don't want to go off topic.
 
A letter on King Edward VIII's Abdication
Archbishop Lang told Stanley Baldwin that Edward had undergone treatment for alcoholism using hyptnotism.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136672

Once he was King, why did Edward VIII pose for his State portrait in his Coronation robes if he planned to abdicate?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent & Strathearn & Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld
Replies
7
Views
1K
Prinsara
Prinsara
Blog Real
King Edward III 'The Confessor' (1003/5-1066) and Queen Edith of Wessex
Replies
3
Views
844
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Blog Real
King Vittorio Emanuele I (1759-1824) and Queen Maria Teresa of Austria-Este
Replies
2
Views
498
Blog Real
Blog Real
Blog Real
King Edward I (1239-1307) and Wives (Eleanor of Castile & Margaret of France)
Replies
17
Views
1K
LauraS3514
LauraS3514
Blog Real
King Carlo Alberto (1798-1849) and Queen Maria Theresa of Austria
Replies
2
Views
555
Blog Real
Blog Real

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom