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:
'His brothers were left a very large sum — about three-quarters of a million in cash; he was left nothing, and was precluded from converting anything (such as the stamp collection, the racehorses, etc.) into ready money.


. his private fortune, amassed while he was Prince of Wales, already amounted to nearly a million — which sum he took with him, of course, when he finally left the country.
Click to expand...

£750'000 would be worth tens of millions today. Off topic I know but why was the Duke of Kent's widow so poor by royal standards I wonder.

David had duchy income for a good twenty years. Off topic again (I shall get into trouble :D) but it makes you wonder how much the present Prince of Wales has managed to put away over the last fifty.:whistling:
 
Durham said:
£750'000 would be worth tens of millions today. Off topic I know but why was the Duke of Kent's widow so poor by royal standards I wonder.

David had duchy income for a good twenty years. Off topic again (I shall get into trouble :D) but it makes you wonder how much the present Prince of Wales has managed to put away over the last fifty.:whistling:
Click to expand...

I can't tell you how much Charles has managed to put away from his time as The Prince of Wales but I can make a comparison between Charles and his predecessor PoW, David.

David saw the duchy income as his own to do what he pleased with. Charles, on the other hand, has worked tirelessly over the decades to actually leave the Duchy of Cornwall even more sustainable for future PoWs that are to follow. One example would be Highgrove, itself. Highgrove, itself, doesn't belong to the PoW but rather to the Duchy of Cornwall. David *took* from the duchy. Charles has *improved* it. ?
 
There is criticism of the duchy as an entity & legitimate questions to be had over what happens to its surpluses. Not to mention questions over whether the heir really needs such a vast income. He does maintain himself in some style.

But I agree with your point that his stewardship is very different from the last duke.:flowers:
 
Durham said:
£750'000 would be worth tens of millions today. Off topic I know but why was the Duke of Kent's widow so poor by royal standards I wonder.

David had duchy income for a good twenty years. Off topic again (I shall get into trouble :D) but it makes you wonder how much the present Prince of Wales has managed to put away over the last fifty.:whistling:
Click to expand...

What was left was £750,000 in total to Edward's brothers, that is, £250,000 each for the Dukes of York, Gloucester and Kent.

I can remember being surprised when reading that in the original document. £250,000 was of course an unbelievable amount of money to the vast majority of British people in the hungry Thirties but not such a vast sum for King's sons, even at the time. US multi-millionaires' children would probably have scoffed at the amount.

I believe both Gloucester and Kent bought country houses and small estates with some of their inheritance. Probably the new King used his to partly pay for Sandringham and Balmoral when he purchased them later from Edward.
 
Last edited:
Yes you're right there were plenty of far wealthier people at the time than George V. That said a quarter of a million is £18 million today (if the site I looked at is accurate) so I'm still puzzled as to why Marina was so relatively hard up. Death duties I suppose? She was housed for free in London eventually as well.

Coppins was inherited.
 
I think wealth is a question of degree with royalty. I looked things up in my bio of George and Marina and it became clear that, except for a brief period, reports of Marina's poverty have been greatly exaggerated.

The difficulties arose for Marina largely between 1943 and 1953. George, a fit youngish man, had made a will locking in his personal wealth in trust for his children as adults. As well, his Civil List allowance of £25,000 a year died with him in 1943.

At the time there was no provision for Royal widows on the Civil List. Queen Mary and King George VI (not particularly wealthy himself as a wartime King) helped Marina with undisclosed sums each year. The end of the war and post-war period coincided with boarding school fees and expenses for Edward their son, then Alexandra the only daughter. Later for Michael as well of course. And Edward went into the Army, not a cheap process in a smart regiment.

In 1953, Marina's Civil List provision was restored and increased by £25,000. The new Queen gave £5,000 a year as well as a large apartment at Kensington Palace next door to the Athlones. Marina had a full staff there, including footmen.

George had earlier (before the war) wished to dispose of Coppins and buy something a bit larger. To that end a lot of Victorian silver, antique furniture, paintings etc left to the couple by Princess Victoria (George's aunt) had been kept, but in the 1950s Marina sent them for sale. That brought in £40,000. Later she sold a quite valuable painting, presumably for extra financial security, which garnished another £50,000. So Marina was never in any sense slumming it.
 
Last edited:
Curryong said:
I think wealth is a question of degree with royalty. I looked things up in my bio of George and Marina and it became clear that, except for a brief period, reports of Marina's poverty have been greatly exaggerated.

The difficulties arose for Marina largely between 1943 and 1953. George, a fit youngish man, had made a will locking in his personal wealth in trust for his children as adults. As well, his Civil List of £25,000 a year died with him in 1943.

At the time there was no provision for Royal widows on the Civil List. Queen Mary and King George VI (not particularly wealthy himself as a wartime King) helped Marina with undisclosed sums each year. The end of the war and post-war period coincided with boarding school fees and expenses for Edward their son, then Alexandra the only daughter. Later for Michael as well of course. And Edward went into the Army, not a cheap process in a smart regiment.

sense slumming it.
Click to expand...
I've not read much about Marina, but the little I've seen about her, I don't find her a sympathetic character.. I think she cried poverty... and wasn't all that badly off...
 
Denville said:
I've not read much about Marina, but the little I've seen about her, I don't find her a sympathetic character.. I think she cried poverty... and wasn't all that badly off...
Click to expand...
Off topic but to me Marina was the perfect princess. Very popular with the public she was always duty first but not a snob. Her sense of duty lives on in her children Edward and Alexandra who continues to serve the Queen even in their eighties.
I just bought a book about Marina & George in a second hand book store that I can't wait to start reading once I'm done with Queen Mary.
 
JR76 said:
Off topic but to me Marina was the perfect princess. Very popular with the public she was always duty first but not a snob. Her sense of duty lives on in her children Edward and Alexandra who continues to serve the Queen even in their eighties.
Click to expand...

And what about Michael?
 
Biri said:
And what about Michael?
Click to expand...
Michael has no official role and has had to support himself throughout his adult life. He does seem delighted to and ready to help out when required.
 
JR76 said:
Off topic but to me Marina was the perfect princess. Very popular with the public she was always duty first but not a snob. Her sense of duty lives on in her children Edward and Alexandra who continues to serve the Queen even in their eighties.
I just bought a book about Marina & George in a second hand book store that I can't wait to start reading once I'm done with Queen Mary.
Click to expand...

Im not going to pursue this but I don't agree, it seems that Marina WAS very much of a snob.. and wanted her children to make royal marriages.
Re the Windsors, well, its hard to say anything new about them isn't it? They were a selfish pair who ended their lives in a sad exile...
 
I became interested in Princess Marina when I was very young and Prince Michael talked about her when he came to our school in his role with the Masons. I've always been fond of him despite their ups and downs because of that. She seemed to me to be a fascinating person but I think "poverty" is entirely relative in royal terms.

Re the will. I can kind of appreciate David might have been dismayed at not getting a cash lump sum like the rest of his siblings as he had an expensive mistress among other things but I don't feel very sorry for him. Not only had he had the Duchy of Cornwall for years but would also have the Duchy of Lancaster and everything else. Whereas the (large amount) of cash his brothers got would to a certain extent be the biggest chance they had to secure themselves for their lifetimes. Which was why they were left the money. Again not feeling sorry for anyone in this situation.
 
Heavs said:
I bDavid might have been dismayed at not getting a cash lump sum like the rest of his siblings as he had an expensive mistress among other things but I don't feel very sorry for him. Not only had he had the Duchy of Cornwall for years but would also have the Duchy of Lancaster and everything else. Whereas the (large amount) of cash his brothers got would to a certain extent be the biggest chance they had to secure themselves for their lifetimes. Which was why they were left the money. Again not feeling sorry for anyone in this situation.
Click to expand...
No no reason to feel sorry for David. He had had the income from the Duchy of Cornwall for a long time and had salted away quite a bit of money.. When he felt nervous about "Poverty", his answer was to cut staff and put people out of a job... And it is usual for the Monarch to make arrangements that take advantage of the "monarch to monarch" set up, so that they can minimize taxes for their heirs and then to leave money to their younger children, because they wotnt be getting the main royal estates ie Cornwall and Lancaster. George V was doing the sensible thing for his children.. but I suppose David took personal offence at it..a nd also was annoyed that he wasn't rich enough, esp. because he probably DID intend to get out of the royal cage and felt he would need lots of money to do so...
 
Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson - Interview with Kenneth Harris - BBC 1970.
 
LauraS3514 said:
Years after the war, The Duke of Windsor was quoted as saying “I never thought Hitler was such a bad chap.” AFTER the war. That says it all.
Click to expand...

Actually, as a quote, that's highly ambiguous. Does it mean:

"I never thought Hitler was as bad as he ended up being?" - which is a view many, many people ended up with.
OR
"I still don't think Hitler was so bad." - which, yeah, that's a problem. So much of a problem, I'm just going to assume he meant the first, and I don't particularly like the Duke at all.
 
Towards the last decades of their lives the Duke and DUchess became socialites, hosting elaborate dinner parties, living in a suite of rooms at the Waldorf Astoria (their pictures were all over the place before the renovation of the Waldorf). Marlene Dietrich would talk about the dinner parties she attended where they hosted. And the Duke and Duchess had their "winters" in Palm Beach.
 
Prinsara said:
Actually, as a quote, that's highly ambiguous. Does it mean:

"I never thought Hitler was as bad as he ended up being?" - which is a view many, many people ended up with.
OR
"I still don't think Hitler was so bad." - which, yeah, that's a problem. So much of a problem, I'm just going to assume he meant the first, and I don't particularly like the Duke at all.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to beleieve that someone would say something ambiguous about Hitler, that could be misinterpreted as "He' wasn't such a bad guy"...
If he meant the first thing, he would have said, " When I met Hitler, he seemed OK and I didn't realise how bad he really was..."
 
Denville said:
I find it hard to beleieve that someone would say something ambiguous about Hitler, that could be misinterpreted as "He' wasn't such a bad guy"...
If he meant the first thing, he would have said, " When I met Hitler, he seemed OK and I didn't realise how bad he really was..."
Click to expand...

Not sure anyone really gave David points for brains, tact, or not skating by on the privilege of his first forty years....

Now do you really think he would have been so stupid as to express the second in public......

Or that his biographers and other historians wouldn't have gone to town on it by now?

And again, if you think he was the only person to express such a sentiment exactly like that, dream on.
 
Last edited:
Sandy345 said:
Towards the last decades of their lives the Duke and DUchess became socialites, hosting elaborate dinner parties, living in a suite of rooms at the Waldorf Astoria (their pictures were all over the place before the renovation of the Waldorf). Marlene Dietrich would talk about the dinner parties she attended where they hosted. And the Duke and Duchess had their "winters" in Palm Beach.
Click to expand...

They were socialites, living a pretty fluffy useless life, all of their married life...

Prinsara said:
Not sure anyone really gave David points for brains, tact, or not skating by on the privilege of his first forty years....

Now do you really think he would have been so stupid as to express the second in public......

Or that his biographer and other historians wouldn't have gone to town on it by now?

And again, if you think he was the only person to express such a sentiment exactly like that, dream on.
Click to expand...

well yes if he was so stupid, then I'm sure he would be capable of saying something clumsy and insensitive.. And I don't know what you mean by the last sentence. Of course he wasn't the only person to think that Hitler had a fair few good points or had been unfairly vilified or whatever. It doesn't alter the fact that it was hardly an admirable point of view. The Mosleys continued to have a fascistic bent, well after teh war... but that doesn't make it ok
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lord Kinross was the friend to whom, after the war, the Duke remarked that ‘Hitler wasn’t such a bad chap’.

In his memoirs, the Duke denied being pro-Nazi. ‘The Fuhrer,’ he wrote, ‘struck me as a somewhat ridiculous figure, with his theatrical posturing and bombastic pretensions.’
In private, however, he told his friend Lord Kinross in the 1960s: ‘I never thought Hitler was such a bad chap.’

Adapted by Corinna Honan from Tea With Hitler, by Dean Palmer, published on April 30 by The History Press, £20. © Dean Palmer 2021. To order a copy for £17.60 (offer valid to May 1, 2021; UK P+P free on orders over £20), go to www.mailshop.co.uk/books or call 020 3308 9193.
 
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Edward-VIII-American-wife-Wallis-Simpson.html

I think in 2021; they would have been allowed to marry and take their place as King and Consort Queen. I believe Wallis was a strong woman, and Edward needed that contrast in his life. History paints them as selfish; but they just wanted to be happy, and Wallis second husband went on to marry someone else as well. If they had met first time around, there would have been no obstacle to a marriage (Wallis divorces got in the way).

A very interesting updated story on the Duke and Duchess of Windsor. We know a lot about before; but there is very little about what happened after they left the UK. I will definitely read the new book. The Scandalous Exile Of The Duke And Duchess Of Windsor, by Andrew Lownie, published by Blink on August 19 at £25.
 
Last edited:
I doubt that even today they would have been allowed to marry, Wallis being a divorcee is one thing, her closeness to Nazi officials is another.
In the overall picture, I agree with the author about history repeating itself, and not in a good way.
 
Duke of Marmalade said:
I doubt that even today they would have been allowed to marry, Wallis being a divorcee is one thing, her closeness to Nazi officials is another.
Click to expand...

And probably infertile, she didn't have children with any of her husbands.
 
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
820
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
Blog Real
King Vittorio Emanuele I (1759-1824) and Queen Maria Teresa of Austria-Este
Replies
2
Views
491
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
526
Blog Real
Blog Real

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom