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

[BeatrixFan]

Returning to Britain was never an option, war or no war. In the event they were given the option to redeem themselves.... out of harms way, in the Bahama's.

I disagree. Most of the public were supportive of the Duke and I believe would have been happy to let them reside in England as long as they lived as peers rather than Royals. The Duke must have had the right to sit in the Lords but they could have made special provision to deny him that. What harm could it do to have the Windsors living a private life on a private estate? I think if they'd have gone down that route then the Windsors would have had a much nicer life. And then, when the war came along, they could have done their bit and redeemed their reputation a little - I'm sure it could have been done and it was a viable option but one that was never looked into. If they were good enough to act as British diplomats, they were good enough to reside on British soil.

In those dark days the King and Queen had to be the rallying point of a nation. Staunchly backing the government and the Prime Minister. A pro-Nazi ex King could have divided the nation. It could even have lost Britain the war. (A house divided against itself cannot stand! Not exactly the "Queen Mother effect!").

I don't believe David could ever have been King but we had plenty of pro-Nazis in Britain, Sir Oswald Mosely and his wife Diana to name but two. I fail to see why in a democratic country, we can't have private citizens who hold extreme right views. If the majority want to follow those views then they will but that didn't happen and I can't see why the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in their private status couldn't have returned to England and live a private existance. Personally I think any political affiliation would have been a mistake but if they did, they'd be doing so as private citizens and I don't see that as a problem or divisive to the nation unless you're suggesting there was possible mandate for a Nazi majority in Britain. But politics aside, and if they had remained totally apolitical, I don't see why they couldn't have visited the bombed out East End just as the Queen Mother did (as Queen) - after all, the Duke was popular there, more popular than the Queen Mother when she first visited. And if that had have happened, I'm sure that it would have been very different after the war with the Windsors held in a very different regard.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

David was a good person. He made some questionable or downright idiotic judgements (or possibly didn't use any judgement at all) at many times of his life, but imho they were all honest mistakes on his part. I don't believe he ever meant harm, though I won't delude myself into thinking he was an angel either. He was just a person.
The fact that he Abdicated makes me respect him. It required tremendous courage, especially for a proud man who was raised & taught to be borderline superman, for him to admit his inability to carry out the requirements kingship. It's sad, of course, because "Bertie" didn't want the position anymore than "David" did. But Bertie accepted it, and he made do. They both made a choice. David said no. Bertie said yes. Neither choice was wrong because both choices were personal.

 

[lilibet80]

"Bertie" accepting the throne

David was absolutely obsessed with having Wallis as his wife. Nothing, not even his country and family came before Wallis. Bertie loved Elizabeth as much as David loved Wallis. Had Bertie been in the same position as David, although it might have ruined his life and broken his heart he would have given her up and remained on the throne. An abdication would probably never have occurred to him. He had character and loyalty.

 

[branchg]

The Duke abdicated the throne to marry a twice-divorced woman who was rejected by the Government and the Dominions as suitable to become Queen Consort or a member of the royal family. He paid the price for his decision.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

To me, it shows more character for David that he stepped down, rather than pretend, or settle for something that would make him miserable. How can someone be a good king if they are personally miserable? Bertie hated to take on the job, but at least he had the love of his life at his side. It made it so much easier for him to have Elizabeth with him. The Queen Mother was really the reason he was able to do it. David did the same thing which Bertie would have done, imho, because both men had honor. They would not try to have both worlds, but would make a choice.

 

[Duchess]

i think they both paid a huge price. david gave up the throne for her and i think she married him out of devotion, not love, knowing that she would have to remain at his side forever. i think their story was fascinating and i love reading about them. it almost reminds me of charles and camilla in that she is the love of his life but he's not the love hers but they'll be together forever.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

I know what you mean, Duchess. There are more parallels between Charles and his uncle besides Camilla, all of which are incredibly fascinating. Both had strict navy-obsessed fathers. Both had strict schooling programs. Although of course Charles's formal education began much earlier and was more demanding from its start, David's education at Osbourne was very rough, and he went on to serve in the First World War. Then they were both so popular with the public, so quickly.
There were differences in their personality, but I think the similarities were strong enough that when they finally met they bonded quickly. I'm always so glad that Mountbatten pushed Charles to meet David.

I love this picture of young David. It was taken by Walter Pannell in 1911 and belongs to the V&A Museum.
Cadet Prince Edward

 

[Duchess]

nice pic CT. they say that history repeats itself and i think the charles/camilla and the david/wallis and the david/charles situations are pretty close to that.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I don't think Charles and Camilla's situation is anything like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's situation. The Church, the Government and the majority of the establishment decided that Edward VIII was too much of a liability and Wallis was a convenient way of getting rid of him. Charles and Camilla have been allowed to marry and Camilla has been allowed to become a kind of Royal, even though IMO it's a second class one. If the two situations were at all similar I think we'd have seen Charles giving up his rights to the throne before a marriage could take place.

 

[magnik]

I wonder if there will be other Dukes of Windsor?
Could it be a title reserved for the ex-kings, PsoW or princes who married without permisssion for the marriage?

 

[BeatrixFan]

I doubt it. There's not really any reason why any Royal shouldn't marry whoever they want to these days barring the Catholic thing and if that really was an issue within the immediate family then I think it'd be a case of ending the Catholic ban rather than pensioning them off with the Dukedom of Windsor.

 

[Martha]

The rules in European Royalty have changed. The Duke of Windsor had to renounce The Throne of United Kindom, because He loved Wallis Simpson, and She was divorced.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, not really. That was a minor issue, the real reasons were far more complex. Wallis was American for one, ear-marked as a possible national socialist and generally considered not to be at all genteel enough to take the back footing as Queen Consort. David was considered to be too involved in politics, considered to have no regard whatsoever for the Church and to be incredibly modern. It was a serious combination that went against everything the Government and the Church wanted at the time and so they effectively organised a coup to oust him with Wallis as a very convenient cover story.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

If the two situations were at all similar I think we'd have seen Charles giving up his rights to the throne before a marriage could take place.

No. I don't agree. The people around Charles always discouraged him from repeating anything resembling the Abdication Crisis. This is I believe why he was so strongly pushed into marrying a young virginal aristocrat with no skeletons in her closet. Then as it became a matter of Charles insisting to marry Camilla, ways were made for them to do it without repeating the Abdication Crisis. Now the old restrictions are being lifted expressively for that purpose. I don't believe anyone in the royal family today or any of their flunkies wish to stomach another Abdication. At the very worst case scenario, Camilla will be his Princess Consort (best case, obviously, his Queen) but every effort will be made to ensure Charles becomes and stays King.

 

[lilibet80]

mumps

"As regards to any issue of their relationship, I had read that David had mumps and was sterile. Anybody else have any info. on that?"

Both David and his brother Bertie caught mumps when they were away at Dartmouth. It is believed that David was sterile and there is some question about Bertie's inability to impregnate Elizabeth until she had artificial insemination. David apparently also had some chronic sexual problems.

 

[BeatrixFan]

At the very worst case scenario, Camilla will be his Princess Consort (best case, obviously, his Queen) but every effort will be made to ensure Charles becomes and stays King.

Really? I personally think we're seeing an Edward VIII kind of situation where the establishment doesn't want to see Charles become King. This time however, it's the Government who are supportive of him and rather the men in grey suits who are supposed to be working for Charles that are the biggest threat as I suppose they were with Edward VIII. They've made it clear that they consider Camilla a second class Royal and so we may not see an abdication but we're possibly seeing how Wallis might have been treated had a deal been possible marriage wise.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

As always, you make an excellent point in making a distinction between Gov't and Courtier support for Charles. I admit that the distinction here has not entered much into my thoughts about it. Regarding the Edward VIII case, I guess he had all sides working against him, except his family. I'm sure his family had reservations about Wallis, but by and large, the lot of them adored David, esp. Queen Mary, Princess Mary, and his successor. I imagine "Bertie" prayed everyday that his brother would somehow manage to remain on the Throne. I can't imagine his feelings of succeeding David as King being anything short of revulsion.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

"As regards to any issue of their relationship, I had read that David had mumps and was sterile. Anybody else have any info. on that?"

Both David and his brother Bertie caught mumps when they were away at Dartmouth. It is believed that David was sterile and there is some question about Bertie's inability to impregnate Elizabeth until she had artificial insemination. David apparently also had some chronic sexual problems.

Is there some connection between mumps and sterility? Is it proven to be a cause of sterility?
I have also heard the sterile rumor, but it baffles me how anyone could know it. However, I know Wallis had a way of saying personal things carelessly.

 

[COUNTESS]

Yes, mumps can cause sterility. Not always, but frequently. Things were different than today. Divorce was totally unacceptable in those circles and remained that way until the Queen Mother died. I don't think she would have danced joyfully at Charles second wedding, as she, obviously, did not feel divorced people should be on the throne. But Charles was divorced, and I am sure she wanted him to regin. I just think the remarriage would have brought back old memories. I really don't know how the present queen feels. You are right, they certainly didn't want another abdication crisis, although, this would not have been an abdication, but a renunciation. Camilla matters not at all. She is not the mother of any future king or queen. She does nothing for dynastic worries. I think, the courtiers, in many instances, see this as a morgantic marriage. I know the UK does not not have morgantic marriages in the law, but one can be treated that way, written or not.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I would say that the attitude to divorce changed substantially long before the Queen Mother died and had to considering that the Royal Family saw more divorces than most common families. When you've got the Queen's sister and three of her children filing for divorce, you can't afford to remain stoicly moral. You say Camilla doesn't matter at all but as this thread shows by it's very existance, she does. Wallis Simpson mattered enough to cause an abdication and what Wallis was denied, Camilla has been given - on the surface. But what I believe has happened is that we're very much seeing how a Queen Wallis would have been treated. Always sidelined, treated quite badly by courtiers and generally seen as second class which has all the hallmarks of a morganatic marriage as you say - but morganatic marriage doesn't exist in Britain and thats why we had a Duke and Duchess of Windsor in the first place. David and Wallis, Charles and Camilla - all four of them seem to have been abused by the very people they were led to believe would support them.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

Charles waited until after 2002 to marry Camilla, and I believe he did this in order to spare any unnecessary trauma to the Queen Mother's final years. So he waited until the mourning period was more than respectably passed to begin putting the wheels in motion of making Camilla his wife.
It wasn't that the Queen Mother was an obstacle, or that anyone in the royal family objected to it. As BeatrixFan says, the divorce taboo was ancient history at the highest levels. Yet the Queen Mother was from another time, an Charles loving her dearly, he waited until she was gone before doing something which he knew must be painful for her to accept.
I also think the "second class" theory is very likely, in the cases of both Camilla and Wallis.

 

[COUNTESS]

Oh, I think you are both right. Yes, Charles could marry her, but she would never fall into the parameters of a "first class citizen" Yes, Wallis would have found the same situation. I think, that to a certain degree, both ladies did not find it unacceptable to remain unmarried, because marriage would not be the panacea their husbands thought it would be.

 

[branchg]

Well, the marriage is not morganatic, which certainly was the case with The Duchess being denied what was rightfully hers by George VI. And Charles is not The Sovereign, so it didn't raise the same constitutional issues faced by Edward in marrying against the advice of the Government.

However, if Camilla becomes HRH The Princess Consort, rather than HM Queen Camilla, she will most definitely be a morganatic wife since Parliament would have to intervene to legally deny her right to share her husband's rank and title.

 

[ysbel]

If anyone who knew that David had mumps as an adult, they could justifiably assume that David was sterile after that point.

The temperature that the mumps cause is so high it kills all the sperm in an adult male. For little boys whose bodies haven't yet begun to produce sperm, their future ability to reproduce is not affected.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Well, the marriage is not morganatic

Legally maybe not but in all other aspects it seems to be.

 

[ysbel]

I doubt it. There's not really any reason why any Royal shouldn't marry whoever they want to these days.

Well that's pretty much what is going on with the royal families in Europe today but I don't think the royal families are quite used to it yet. I admit I don't get a warm and fuzzy by a young hotshot heir to the throne marrying the first girl he falls in love with because she's the one.

 

[BeatrixFan]

I have to agree. Though I said there's no reason why any Royal shouldn't marry who they want to, I don't agree with that though it is the case.

 

[CasiraghiTrio]

There are rational objections to some royal matches. For instance, an overtly politically controversial match like a prince/princess and a Nazi "Skinhead" could be considered a rational objection. I think, however, that the objections to Wallis and Camilla have been irrationally based on stereotypes or prejudice.

 

[Duchess]

I don't think Charles and Camilla's situation is anything like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's situation. The Church, the Government and the majority of the establishment decided that Edward VIII was too much of a liability and Wallis was a convenient way of getting rid of him. Charles and Camilla have been allowed to marry and Camilla has been allowed to become a kind of Royal, even though IMO it's a second class one. If the two situations were at all similar I think we'd have seen Charles giving up his rights to the throne before a marriage could take place.

we refering to their feelings for one another. but you're right, things have changed a lot since the windsors.

 

[branchg]

I don't know if I can agree there are not "rational" objections to either Wallis or Camilla as royal consorts.

Wallis was not an honourable woman, given what we know now about her carrying on with another man while still married and seeing Edward at the same time. She certainly was greedy and self-indulgent with no real sense of the sacrifices that come with being a member of the royal family.

Camilla was the mistress of The Prince of Wales for years, including while she was married to Andrew Parker-Bowles. While that doesn't excuse Diana's own comforts outside her marriage, it certainly raises questions of character that are uncomfortable for the monarchy and its future Sovereign.

In my opinion, the British monarchy has to demonstrate mystique and a sense of duty to survive. Once everyone starts marrying the risque girl down the street and getting divorces left and right, it diminishes their standing and makes it a common affair.