The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1541  
Old 07-13-2017, 01:21 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
I don't believe that George VI's private letters have been published.. if they were, he might come across as more racist than he does, and so wold the QM.. as we know.
Edward, its sometime since I read a bio so I dont know if he was more unpleasantly racist in his views than most people at that time.
Yes he was a whiner but he kept it mostly to maoning to his friends and loved ones... he didn't do so In public and while he did behave badly at times during his POW years, mostly I would say, he did the job, and kept his moaning for private life. He was IMO an unhappy unsatisfied person, I think that he reacted badly to his parents' lack of overt love for him.. and was seeking "unconditional mother love" from the women in his life most notably of course Wallis.
but he did slog it out at the boring wrork as POW, he tired to get to the Front in WWI, and his worst behaviour came along after the WWII, when he did not even have the brain to conceal his lack of sympathy for Jews and his belief that "Hitler wasn't such a bad chap.." and seems to have been restlessly trying for 30 years to make some kind of life In café society, with Wallis.. and find some satisfaction in that...
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1542  
Old 07-14-2017, 12:24 AM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 580
I don't know if George VI can be considered a prolific letter writer, and if he was it would be the recipient of the letters or his/her heirs who would release those letters. George VI did keep a diary and seemed to be more expansive in his diaries than his father.

From what I've gleaned George VI did not have the same racist proclivities that his brother had. I am not saying that they are paragons of racial enlightenment but many key figures in the BRF like Queen Victoria and George VI seemed (to me) to be fairly racially tolerant and Edward VIII racism seems out of character for a BRF born royal - despite their tolerant views that did not preclude marriage to a partner who was less racially tolerant, e.g, QEQM.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1543  
Old 07-14-2017, 01:25 AM
Tiggersk8's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Evansville, Canada
Posts: 2,124
I've often wondered just how much of Edward VIIII/David's behaviour &/or character goes back to what went on w/that first abusive Nanny who became so possessive of him. We know the effects it had on Bertie, as I'm almost certain the majority of his Stomach Issues have been linked back to that time frame & what she did to him.

David OTOH...It seemed whenever he was w/someone, the reason for it ending 9 times out of 10 was because he was so needy & possessive, the woman in question just couldn't take it anymore. Even w/all of the perks of being the PoW's Companion, a person can only take so much.

I really don't know if I'm right or not, but I have wondered over the years about it. As for the Baby Talk? I didn't think a couple could be more sugary or childish in their letters to each other than the late Tsar Nicholas II & Tsarina Alexandra of All The Russias. Then I read David & Wallis' & ye gads!! I think it's a tie between them. As someone up thread said, if I wasn't a Royal History Buff, the book wouldn't have been finished. Just....Yeah.
__________________
Recycle Life ~ Be An Organ Donor!!
Recieved my Kidney Transplant on December 10th, 1993 and will be forever grateful to the family of my donor for the greatest earliest Christmas Present I've ever been given
Reply With Quote
  #1544  
Old 07-14-2017, 02:06 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
I From what I've gleaned George VI did not have the same racist proclivities that his brother had. I am not saying that they are paragons of racial enlightenment but many key figures in the BRF like Queen Victoria and George VI seemed (to me) to be fairly racially tolerant and Edward VIII racism seems out of character for a BRF born royal - despite their tolerant views that did not preclude marriage to a partner who was less racially tolerant, e.g, QEQM.
Q Vic was tolerant by the standards of her day, but it could be argued that seeing Indians as "romantic figures" is as racist as seeing them as much lower or "less human" than oneself. However I agree, she was a fair minded woman in many ways and her attitudes were in racial matters fairly liberal. However I don't know how much that applied to other royals. Certanly her children didn't like either John Brown or the "Munshi" guy and thought that Vic was too friendly with them.
but I meant that if we don't have access to G VI's diaries or letters, its possible that he in private was not that "unracist" and because of his position as King, its been edited out of what we know about him. and possibly George Kent and Henry D of Glouc were also racist by today's standards.

whereas David having abandoned the RF and published books etc is less likely to be protected from being seen in a less amiable light.
He certainly wasn't the best person to send to the Bahamas as Governor, as he seems to have made a hash of a lot of things out there, and wasn't able to hide his less tolerant views about the local people.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1545  
Old 07-20-2017, 02:15 AM
eya eya is offline
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: -, Greece
Posts: 9,218
Churchill's bid to cover up Duke's link to the Nazis | Daily Mail Online

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/...azi-sympathies

New files show how Churchill tried to cover documents to show link of Duke to the Nazi
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1546  
Old 07-20-2017, 04:55 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: central valley, United States
Posts: 829
A couple of items caught my attention, I've read a couple of biographies about the Duke & Duchess & King George VI and his consort Queen Elizabeth, but none have sated that the Duke considered his brother to be 'stupid', so that's new. From the article : "According to their notes [the German operatives], the Duke considered his younger brother, King George VI, 'utterly stupid', the Queen an intriguer and Churchill a warmonger." I have read that both the Duke and Duchess believed Queen Elizabeth, the Queen mother, to be an intriguer and the cause of the friction between them and King George VI.
This quote, which has been referenced in several sources, is interesting as well "He [the Duke of Windsor] believed only the continued heavy bombing of British cities would bring the United Kingdom to the negotiating table." Was undoubtedly particularly offensive to King George VI and Queen Elizabeth, as they were witnessing and enduring the bombing and seeing their people die and their land be devastated by the German bombs while the Duke callously was urging the Germans to bomb more.
Not releasing this information right after the war undoubtedly protected the Duke and Duchess's reputations, not so sure its' release would have harmed the entire house of Windsor, though, as the bad apple was not on the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1547  
Old 07-20-2017, 06:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,917
Some information on the Duke's opinions and wartime activities will probably never be released, IMO. Such documents lie in Windsor, the Home Office and even in Washington archives. Now so much is known about Edward most new info now would probably now only raise an eyebrow or two, but just after the war, with his mother and siblings still alive, it would have caused an enormous scandal.

The attitude today among governments and the family is probably 'let sleeping dogs lie'. Edward had the appeasers' belief, even after the conflict, that Britain should have signed a pact with Hitler and stayed out of WWII. Absolute nonsense, in my view.

The Duke of Windsor's own intellectual capacity wasn't considered exactly huge by his contemporaries, but as the years went on he and Wallis seemed to concentrate on the QM's 'undue influence' on the King as an explanation for the attitudes of his family towards them. Much more comforting that way than realising that the King had their measure. George VI was no intellectual giant but he was, like his father, a good and honourable individual, with guts and common sense.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1548  
Old 07-21-2017, 01:32 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
I dont know if Edward would have behaved as badly as one might fear, if he had been king when war brorke out, or if he had been restored ot the throne. However I agree that the RF problaby don't want to say too much about him.. for fear of making "one of their own" look so bad to the public. I think they're not too bothered about SOME negative stories coming out but there are limits.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1549  
Old 08-21-2017, 05:42 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,879
I find that BRF history tries to paint the non King as some kind of evil so as to make the actual king look good. For example Albert Victor compared to George V, George VI compared to Edward, even Margaret Rose compared to Elizabeth.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #1550  
Old 08-21-2017, 05:51 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
?? Albert Victor wasn't evil but he was a pretty awful person to be In line for the throrne and George V was a dozen times better. Similarly Edw VIII was a disaster as king and G VI was a great deal better. Margaret certainly was a great deal less dutiful than her sister and would be far less admired had she been the heir...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1551  
Old 08-21-2017, 06:31 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,879
My point proven
The bad of the non monarch is focused on and the bad of the monarch is hushed up, ignored or trivialized.
Like a modern Virgin Mary vs Mary Magdellon .

Especially regarding Edward I'm not saying he was a saint or the perfect person, just that the vilification and whipping boy effect has taken hold with him in a similar way that it does with AV and MR.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #1552  
Old 08-21-2017, 11:49 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
I am afraid that I over reacted to this but I do think that it is nonsensical to say that the "Good royal v Bad Royal thing" is there with Alb Victor and Geo V, or the DOW and Geo VI.
I think Any reasonable historical appraisal of the D of Clarence and Geo V would come out that "Eddy" was a borderline mentally deficient young man who certainly wasn't up to the job of being king, and while G V certainly had his faults which are wellknown, Eddy would probably have been a disaster.
and the same with the D of Windsor and his brother. George VI's faults are known, he had an irritable temper, he wasn't thtat bright, I would imagine that like most peole of his class he was by modern terms racist, but he was streets ahead of his brother in terms of dedication to duty, willingness to work and care for his people.
And iwht Marg and the queen, the queen's faults are known.. she's inclined to ostrich, she's very stiff and shy, and she's rather too conservative.. but she is dutiful and hard working. wheras Margaret has very little that can be said in her favour....
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1553  
Old 08-31-2017, 08:13 PM
Blog Real's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Lisboa, Portugal
Posts: 1,920
__________________
Acclamation Manuel II of Portugal: 6 May 1908
Reply With Quote
  #1554  
Old 08-31-2017, 08:21 PM
Nico's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 1,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blog Real View Post
I just finished Hugo Vickers's "Behind closed doors" about the last years of the Duchess of Windsor. It was horrible, to say the least, as Wallis was more or less left alone in a vegetative state (for 9 years !), and clearly abused by her entourage (and her lawyer in particular).
The Duchess was not a saint, far from it, but no one desserves to end in a state like this ...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1555  
Old 09-01-2017, 12:00 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
I am afraid that I over reacted to this but I do think that it is nonsensical to say that the "Good royal v Bad Royal thing" is there with Alb Victor and Geo V, or the DOW and Geo VI.
I think Any reasonable historical appraisal of the D of Clarence and Geo V would come out that "Eddy" was a borderline mentally deficient young man who certainly wasn't up to the job of being king, and while G V certainly had his faults which are wellknown, Eddy would probably have been a disaster.
and the same with the D of Windsor and his brother. George VI's faults are known, he had an irritable temper, he wasn't thtat bright, I would imagine that like most peole of his class he was by modern terms racist, but he was streets ahead of his brother in terms of dedication to duty, willingness to work and care for his people.
And iwht Marg and the queen, the queen's faults are known.. she's inclined to ostrich, she's very stiff and shy, and she's rather too conservative.. but she is dutiful and hard working. wheras Margaret has very little that can be said in her favour....
Denville, I couldn't agree more. David -Edward VII- prior to meeting Wallis, lacked all sense of duty, other than that which gave him pleasure and held his interest. AFTER meeting Wallis his first duty lay in pleasing her and she was his prime interest................however, I don't believe he really ever wanted to be King -way too restricting- and I believe he saw Wallis as a 'get out of jail free' card. It's more than likely that he knew perfectly well he'd never be able to have her and the crown, As for Wallis -certainly more intelligent than David- she probably wondered what all the fuss was about because she didn't have full grasp on how things were done here, and why should she? I don't believe she wanted to be his Queen any more than she wanted to be his wife, but she'd been backed into a corner from which there was no escape. I believe Britain owes her a debt of gratitude. Without her I think Edward VII would have rendered the 'Great' non existent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1556  
Old 09-02-2017, 02:19 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Omaha, United States
Posts: 1,810
David resented his duties as POW as we all know and have read, his whining letters to his mistresses about the boredom he experienced carrying out duties as he was expected. Then being King he expressed the same feelings because he couldn't carry on without Wallis. David abdicates the Throne and is free to marry, but he soon found out that despite becoming Duke of Windsor (still a Royal) and getting money from the Royal Family to maintain his lifestyle, it wasn't the same as being the King. The "perks" of the office and being a British Royal were essentially much different after his marriage to Wallis and when the Nazis made the offer of placing him back on the Throne as King when they captured England, he wholeheartedly went along with the plan. To be King again, sounded much better now than being just a Duke. Of course, Wallis would be Queen.
My "what if" has always been IF the above scenario had occurred (thank the Lord, it didn't), would the Third Reich have kept it's word to David or if it did, how long would David and Wallis been King and Queen? He would have been a puppet or mere figurehead, but David being an immature, self-centered man, he would have not had a problem with it because he would be the Monarch, but not have the responsibility/duties to carry out the office with a dictatorship calling the shots.
Now my imagination is getting away from me. It turned out that the British Govt. thankfully saw that David needed to be protected not only from himself but that Great Britain needed protection from this very gullible man. He wasn't happy in the Bahamas, but after the Govt. witnessed his coziness with the Third Reich, they couldn't afford to have him anywhere near Europe at that time.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1557  
Old 09-02-2017, 03:14 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 4,917
I have difficulty imagining David as a puppet King under the aegis of the Nazis, actually. If they had placed him on the throne I think that he may well have clashed with them immediately. David did have right wing and quite racist views. However, he was still an Englishman, and would have hated the British being enslaved.

David didn't want to be King for a long time (years) before his abdication but that doesn't mean he didn't have pride of race or pride in his dynasty and the British Empire. He was an appeaser not a Nazi, and had after all been King Emperor of a huge Empire built up by the British over centuries, even if he was HOS for only a short while.

I can't see him enjoying taking orders from Berlin, and if you look at the plans the Nazis had for their conquest of Britain, virtually shopping off the entire male population between 17 and 45 to work as slave labourers in Germany and a conquered Russia, the rest working as slaves in war industries in Britain, for instance, I don't think he would have countenanced it for a minute. That is even recognising all his faults, as I do.

http://www.thewarillustrated.info/21...or-britain.asp

Theres an even worse plan set out for the British set out in William Shirer's 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.'
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1558  
Old 09-02-2017, 03:51 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,309
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katrianna View Post
David resented his duties as POW as we all know and have read, his whining letters to his mistresses about the boredom he experienced carrying out duties as he was expected. Then being King he expressed the same feelings because he couldn't carry on without Wallis. David abdicates the Throne and is free to marry, but he soon found out that despite becoming Duke of Windsor (still a Royal) and getting money from the Royal Family to maintain his lifestyle, it wasn't the same as being the King. The "perks" of the office and being a British Royal were essentially much different after his marriage to Wallis and when the Nazis made the offer of placing him back on the Throne as King when they captured England, he wholeheartedly went along with the plan. To be King again, sounded much better now than being just a Duke. Of course, Wallis would be Queen.
My "what if" has always been IF the above scenario had occurred (thank the Lord, it didn't), would the Third Reich have kept it's word to David or if it did, how long would David and Wallis been King and Queen? He would have been a puppet or mere figurehead, but David being an immature, self-centered man, he would have not had a problem with it because he would be the Monarch, but not have the responsibility/duties to carry out the office with a dictatorship calling the shots.
Now my imagination is getting away from me. It turned out that the British Govt. thankfully saw that David needed to be protected not only from himself but that Great Britain needed protection from this very gullible man. He wasn't happy in the Bahamas, but after the Govt. witnessed his coziness with the Third Reich, they couldn't afford to have him anywhere near Europe at that time.
The Duke of Windsor was not "getting money from the royal family to maintain his lifestyle". He got 21,000 Pounds a year from his brother the King, as a compensation for giving up privately owned properties and estates like Sandringham or Balmoral. King George VI was so short of cash that such an arrangement to compensate his brother was the only way to preserve, with as result that still at present-day the Queen can use her most favourite residence, Balmoral, amongst other private domains. So it was not at all an annuity to fund a lifestyle. It was an annuity to pay off the former King as a compensation for handing over his privately owned properties. In the 36 years as Duke of Windsor, he received some 750,000 Pounds, in my eyes that is a bargain for royal estates like Sandringham or Balmoral, which could have been sold by Edward and Wallis for millions in the 1970's.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1559  
Old 09-02-2017, 05:33 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nico View Post
I just finished Hugo Vickers's "Behind closed doors" about the last years of the Duchess of Windsor. It was horrible, to say the least, as Wallis was more or less left alone in a vegetative state (for 9 years !), and clearly abused by her entourage (and her lawyer in particular).
The Duchess was not a saint, far from it, but no one desserves to end in a state like this ...
I don't know of any evidence that she was "left alone", or abused. She had servants who were loyal to her, and took care of her. it is fo course sad that she ended up so ill and unable to have anything like a real life, but that was just bad luck. I'm sure she was well looked after.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1560  
Old 09-02-2017, 05:39 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,371
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
I I can't see him enjoying taking orders from Berlin, and if you look at the plans the Nazis had for their conquest of Britain, virtually shopping off the entire male population between 17 and 45 to work as slave labourers in Germany and a conquered Russia, the rest working as slaves in war industries in Britain, for instance, I don't think he would have countenanced it for a minute. That is even recognising all his faults, as I do.

Now It Can Be Told! - This Was Hitler's Amazing Plan for Britain - The War Illustrated

Theres an even worse plan set out for the British set out in William Shirer's 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.'
I think he would have been unhappy with it, if british peolple had been enslaved.. but it is possible that if there had been an appeasing King on the throne, conditions mght not have been so bad, as Hitler regarded the British as Aryans and did not really want to fight them. However after having had them put up resistance, and if there was an underground in the UK opposing him, he might have indeed used them as slave labour.
but what couodl David have done, even if he realised his mistakes and hated the whole situation?
If he had put up an opposition, he would probably have just been summarily removed and taken to Germany. They would harldy let him escape from Britan and go away somewhere that he might become a figurehead for resistance.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, britain, duchess of windsor, duke of windsor, edward viii, king edward viii, wallis simpson


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Duchess of Windsor Jewellery micas Royal Jewels 210 09-03-2017 02:19 PM
The Duke of Windsor and Wallis Simpson - 3 June 1937 aussiechick12 Historical Royal Weddings 26 05-01-2015 12:42 PM
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Miss Birgitte van Deurs: 8 July 1972 Scott Royal Weddings 15 11-20-2014 11:41 AM
Books on The Duke and Duchess of Windsor Duchess Royal Library 106 07-15-2013 12:49 PM
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester Current Events 1: October 2003-January 2006 A.C.C. Current Events Archive 132 01-13-2006 10:37 PM




Popular Tags
birthday british royal history carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria crown princess victoria hats current events denmark duchess of brabant duchess of cambridge earl of snowdon family general news grand duke henri hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín jewels king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein lord snowdon love monarchy monarchy versus republic news official visit paris prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince harry of wales prince nicholas prince oscar princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen silvia question soderberg spanish royal family state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria zog



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:32 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises