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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
An agreement was made with Ernest Simpson and he was paid an agreed amount of equiv. $100,000 (lot of money in those times) to finalize the divorce.


This is the first time, I have heard of a dollar amount. Do you have a source to back up this claim?
 
I'm sorry, I made a mistake. It's not $100,000, but GBP100,000. Much more lucrative. The source is Royal Babylon by Karl Shaw, p. 311, third paragraph.

In 1935 GBP1.00 would be worth about GPB58.00 today, so let's see...
tick..tick...tick...that would be about GPB5,800,000.00.

Mr. Simpson got the better deal!
 
Royal Babylon?

I came across that book and dismissed as kind of out there. According to some of the Amazon reviews a lot of the facts reported in the book are in fact not true, and there are some corrections that should have been caught by a good editor.

That being said, I do believe that Ernest was given something to "go away." I just don't think we will ever know the amount.
 
Haven't read that one....
But, like Zonk, I'd bet the farm that ole Ernest was given a (tongue in cheek...hahaha) small king's ransom to make himself very scarce!
 
Royal Babylon?

I came across that book and dismissed as kind of out there. According to some of the Amazon reviews a lot of the facts reported in the book are in fact not true, and there are some corrections that should have been caught by a good editor.

That being said, I do believe that Ernest was given something to "go away." I just don't think we will ever know the amount.

Sure, it might not be true. However, I don't think that most casual readers are "expert." I read everything that is of interest to me, whether true or not.

The book has three pages of references, so I will check those references and see if I can find the source the author used.

So, I will concede that it might be incorrect; but on the other hand....
 
Last edited:
May a new voice contribute to this conversation. David's female
relationships have always fascinated me. Emotionally, his first important one was with a mother who may have lacked the capacity to have a warm, loving relationship with any of her children, thus making nearly
impossible the task of the child to please her and making certain that the
child will try harder. Psychology says that when we get a relationship
wrong in childhood we go on trying, into adulthood to get it right - I believe this is exactly what happened when David met Wallis. This time
he got it right. I think there were huge similarities, instantly recognisable
to him, in Wallis's treatment of him and his memories of how he believed
his mother had treated him. One of the first things he noticed about
Wallis was her lack of deference - the only other important female in his
life who could do that was his mother.It must have been the greatest of
joys for him to discover that Wallis would allow him to please her. Their
relationship, however disfunctional, was right for them. His need was not
just to be allowed to love but to worship, I imagine it was almost totally
unimportant that the object of his devotion returned it, it is possible he
was far to self obsessed to notice. For Wallis this devotion and his
position of course, spelt security which, I believe she craved above all.
Had his mother, because of a (relatively) impoverished childhood not taken a similar path for security and did she feel it necessary to be "in
love"? I'm not sure that either woman was capable of that emotion but
both, in their own way knew where their duty lay and Mary performed
it magnificantly. Wallis spent her life creating an illusion for the "little man" who had given up his throne for her, but who I suspect, had walked
away from something he felt incapable of doing and had never wanted.
Doing it the way he did the responsibility for it became hers, not his.
As to their physical relationship, I think it is Ziegler who quotes her as
telling Baba Metcalffe that she had had two previous husbands but had
not had sexual intercourse with either, to which I can only say that there
is more than one way to skin a rabbit. I expect Freud would have more
to say on the subject.
 
A bad friend to Fruity

... Baba Metcalffe ...

Sorry to boil your interesting post down to a mere two words!

A few posts further up in this thread mentions Oswald Mosley whose second wife was Diana Mitford Guinness. His first wife, Lady Cynthia Curzon, was the sister of Baba Metcalfe (wife of Fruity- what a funny nickname!).

The story of the three Curzon sisters is "The Viceroy's Daughters", and it is a marvelously juicy (but not fruity) read. Sex, betrayal, sex, money, poliltics, sex....and some interesting bits about the Windsors, since Fruity was David's equerry and BFF. Or rather BFF until the Windsors fled Paris and left Fruity behind to fend for himself.
 
The Duke and Wallis were really good about running out and leaving people.. or nations.... to fend for themselves - as per the usual... selfish!
 
Not quite as surprising if we consider that probably Wallis was the most important person in her life and her greatest love, the "little man"s function, for which he was ready, willing and able was to fuel this belief and would go to any - every - length imaginable to do it. What price dereliction of duty to one's King and Country, far worse would have been his dereliction to her. I believe emphatically that from the moment he met her it would have been impossible for him to exist without her. Knowing this was possibly the price she paid for 36+ years she spent with him.She may even have learned that there is no such thing as a FREE lunch, be it bread and cheese or lobster. However, and for this she has my undying gratitude, she saved us from a King whose adult letters are peppered with such phrases as "Thankyou ever so much", "I was ever so pleased to..." and "It was ever so kind of you to..." His behaviour suggests emotional retarding at some point in his development thus rendering his thought processes juvenile - but he would still have been our King. The thought of what might have happened to this country, but for Wallis Simpson is too awful to contemplate.
 
Not quite as surprising if we consider that probably Wallis was the most important person in her life and her greatest love, the "little man"s function, for which he was ready, willing and able was to fuel this belief and would go to any - every - length imaginable to do it. What price dereliction of duty to one's King and Country, far worse would have been his dereliction to her. I believe emphatically that from the moment he met her it would have been impossible for him to exist without her. Knowing this was possibly the price she paid for 36+ years she spent with him.She may even have learned that there is no such thing as a FREE lunch, be it bread and cheese or lobster. However, and for this she has my undying gratitude, she saved us from a King whose adult letters are peppered with such phrases as "Thankyou ever so much", "I was ever so pleased to..." and "It was ever so kind of you to..." His behaviour suggests emotional retarding at some point in his development thus rendering his thought processes juvenile - but he would still have been our King. The thought of what might have happened to this country, but for Wallis Simpson is too awful to contemplate.

How right you are, Tsaritsa. I know that at one point around the time of abdication, there was a "King's party", presumably referring to Edward VIII. These were the people who so loved their POW that they resented George VI taking his place. Of course, the war changed the minds of most of those.
What I wonder is if there is still a King's party who still feel that their guy was wronged? I realize that many who were alive then are no longer around, but is there any sort of- for lack of a better word- cult of personality around the late Duke?
 
Hello Ladongas, I was not around at the time but have been told by numerous females who were that the then POW was the heartthrob of the day - blond hair, blue eyes,wistful little boy looks, he needed to do very little to have them falling at his feet and that's exactly what he did - very little. It is said of some people that what you see is what you get, meaning that they are open and nothing is hidden, in my opinion igt has another interpretation and this is the one which can be applied to Edward i.e.there is nothing beneath the surface. However, it seems he had charm in bucketloads although I imagine it was entirely superficial, and I think at the time of the Abdication he had a substantial following but I think it fell somewhat short of being a Kings Party,but the government of the day may well have thought it a possibility
In 1980 I spent a weekend in Windsor and hoped to get a sight of the Fort (Belvedere) Sadly it was heavily cloaked by trees from all angles and quite invisible from the road. I bemoaned this fact to a friend who it seems, had actually attended parties when the POW lived there!!! I was desperate to know what the inside was like, how it was furnished etc and was told "My dear, you would HATE it, it is full of THAT woman!!!"......and this was more than 40 years on. It would seem that feelings of animosity and resentment last a very long time.
 
They certainly have a presence on the internet. I've run into people on message-boards who think that Edward VIII and Wallis were very hard done by and that George VI was stupid and that his Queen Consort was the essence of evil. So they do exist.


but is there any sort of- for lack of a better word- cult of personality around the late Duke?
 
Tsarritsa- thanks for the inside look. And thanks for letting me know that you weren't around at the time. Of course, I didn't really think you were. I have read that the Fort is presently leased/occupied by someone whose name escapes me, some worthy official from Australia or Canada, I think. Perhaps they have managed to exorcise the ghost of Wallis!

Mermaid, thanks for the warning about the online comments. People posting absurd things on the internet--who'd a thunk it? It's probably only about two people, each with multiple screen names, posting back and forth to each other and to themselves.
 
Tsaritsa -what a great line from your friend! And I totally agree that Britain was spared an immature, self absorbed monarch!
And what complete and utter rubbish, Mermaid, about George VI and Queen Elizabeth... completely. I agree with Ladongas - probably just a few haters.
 
But Heaven was certainly shining on the English when David abdicated... they dodged a MAJOR bullet!


True!

George V, who was an astute judge of character, said he hoped his eldest son would never marry and have children, so that nothing would come between Bertie and Lilibet and the throne.

Really, Edward reminds me of Benet's Man Without A Country, in some ways.
 
Gone with the Windsors by Iles Brody

I recently found this dusty old book on my shelves- one that I must have bought at a library book sale and put away to read later, because I don't remember anything about it.

It's fascinating! Written in the early 50's, it was far enough away from the original events to have some perspective about what happened. And since the Windsors were both still alive and hale at that time, Mr. Brody had no compunction about "telling us what he really thought".

Here's a link to a review of it:
Gone With The Windsors. , Iles Brody - JMVintage - books, magazines, and treasures related to the Duke & Duchess of Windsor....and other curious subjects

BTW, there are at least two other books with the same title, both novels, one by Abbe Edwards, and one by Laurie Graham. This one, by Iles Brody is a fairly scholarly work with trenchant analysis and caustic wit. Highly recommend it!
 
I have read several books on the Windsors and just found at my local Friends of the Library book store...A King's Story by the Duke of Windsor.

I can't wait to see what "he" has to say and get his take on the events.
 
woops. it's not Abbe edwards. but Anne Edwards. sorry.

I read A Kings Story, and I think there may be a movie/documentary as well. The writer of Gone with the Windsors frequently mentions the book and rebuts various points.
 
Mirabel, do you not find it an irony that the character George V condemns to a single, childless life is one of his own creation. I would never deny that he was a good man, solid and dependable, he knew his duty and did it - he was also a narrow minded bigot! This was a man who boasted that he "would make damn sure his children were afraid of him." I believe he suceeded in that beyond his own (limited) expectations - and to whom do these frightened children turn for comfort? Well, certainly not the mother who "always had to remember that their father is first their King" Any boys born of this unfortunate alliance are quite likely to arrive at adulthood lacking in confidence,hooked on anything which "makes it feel better"-drugs, alcohol, tobacco, sex. Some will follow a straight line only b ecause they don't have the confidence to do other than whilst others wll do whatever it takes to rid themselves of it and the memories it evokes. All in all these men will be pretty hopeless characters who most definately will be made or marred by the women they marry. This is indeed what transpired. The pretty, fluffy Elizabeth very gently and lovingly hauled her Bertie up by his bootstrings. It was she who cured his speech impediment, well, she found a man who could! She made him believe in himself, no mean feat when someone has had a lifetime of emotional abuse, but there was so much more to Elizabeth than a dainty exterior-there needed to be, she had taken on the challenge of a lifetime!-inside was pure steel which she used to first recreate the damaged man and then create the King. Poor David had much less going for him, For starters, expectations of him had always been so much higher and he was never going to live up to them-his father's treatment of him made quite certain of that and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that George and Mary knew that there was at least a questionmark about whether David would ever be able to father children. I believe Ziegler looks at this in his bio. David and Bertie both caught mumps at the same time, Being in their early teens both were pretty poorly but whilst Bertie recovered David had orchitis which in a boy who has yet to attain sexual maturity is VERY bad news for the future, to say nothing of the dreadful pain the poor boy must have suffered at the time.Did this illness, which struck at THE very worst possible time for a developing male retard his sexual development thus rendering him sterile? We will, of course never know the answer to that, but if we look at the adult David we see a tiny figure, smooth skin, face and body devoid of hair, boyish looks into middleage, lack of maturity in his thought processes and according to Ziegler somewhat undeveloped genitalia. We also have Wallis's own assertion that "David is not heir conditioned
I will reiterate that I believe she did England THE most enormous favour by removing him from us, she MAY have earned a title for that alone!!! Nonetheless my heart aches for all that generation of little Windsors, especially David. Good, wise and diligent monarchs they undoubtedly were but as parents, IMO George and Mary leave much to be desired.
 
Yes, George and Mary would never be anyone's choice for ideal parents.
And I also agree that Bertie's marriage was his salvation (perhaps one reason why it was said that he catered to her every wish). Elizabeth provided a stable, supportive family environment in which Bertie blossomed; David never had that.

I agree he was all surface charm and no real substance. Yet to some he was and remains a sympathetic character while Wallis is demonized.

I just watched the film Wallis and David, which gives an interesting view of this era.
 
I think David blossomed, but in the only way he knew how. Lacking the maturity and sense of duty that his brother did, David continued to be the "eternal" child... the playboy... the life of the party..... That was his only outlet, his only way of blossoming.... And with this weak and shallow constitution, he naturally latched on to Wallis - the dominant force in his circle of friends.
Great Britain would have never survived Hitler with David as King.... ever!
 
Thanks for sharing gfg02. The description as to why the Duchess is intriguing left me wanting more. I don't know if it is because of William and Kate marrying and I don't think it is Madonna's depiction of her story that is what truly is intriguing. It is, to me, the enchanting anomaly of the drawing of one's attention from Kinghood epiphany to warmth of general and or generous love. Not meaning that there is no lack of involvement within the romance and attraction of those we speak of, to where we assume to understand the story.

I for one hope Madonna's attempt at portrayal enables the Windsors not to be painted as mortals who are misrepresented by mistaken identity. The history of people and of the Royals matter because they are and were contributors to the mass makeup of what we are as continued humans trying to get a perspective on surviving and of our dream of a utopia. So I wish the Royals and Madonna good luck. Maybe as indicated in the writing there is a genuine interest in Hollywood for such a cinema. The story is attractive and so is Wallis Simpson. Like I said I wish all parties involved nothing but good luck. I hope the movie will be great. Cheers. :flowers:
 
Last edited:
After King Edward and Mrs. Simpson cruised the Mediterranean aboard The Nahlin, she stopped in Paris to shop and he returned to England. Mrs. Simpson became ill and while recuperating found the time to read the American newspapers which wrote much about their affair. The British newspapers were still silent out of respect for the monarchy.

Mrs. Simpson was so appalled that she wrote to the King and informed him she had decided to return to Mr. Simpson. Otherwise, she felt the two of them would create a disaster together. Edward telephoned her and threatened to cut his throat if she did not come to Balmoral. In my opinion, this very much sounds like a unhealthy psychological dependence by the King on Mrs. Simpson.
 
They've started airing Any Human Heart on PBS in the US and I find it interesting how we're getting another dose of the Windsors being portrayed in movies (the protagonist, Logan Montstuart, meets them by accident in France when they are the Prince of Wales and Mrs. Simpson and is assigned to keep an eye on them in Portugal and the Bahamas during the War as part of Navy intelligence) like in The King's Speech. Since it's a longer mini-series, there are more scenes of the Duke and especially of the Duchess in AHH compared to TKS (which only had one scene with Wallis). In both films, their Nazi sympathies are glanced over. In the beginning, the Windsors just seemed like spoiled, idle-rich celebrities but their characters are revealed to be much more sinister after the murder of Sir Harry Oakes. Tom Hollander and Gillian Anderson are very good as the Duke and Duchess although the Anderson is bit curvy and short (Wallis was slim and tall), but definitely has portrays Wallis' facial expressions and hold on David well.
 
I hadn't heard this story before, but I find it quite believable. Do you mind if I ask you where you found this item? I believe that he absolutely needed her in some way.


Edward telephoned her and threatened to cut his throat if she did not come to Balmoral. In my opinion, this very much sounds like a unhealthy psychological dependence by the King on Mrs. Simpson.
 
...In my opinion, this very much sounds like a unhealthy psychological dependence by the King on Mrs. Simpson.
VM, how succinctly you say in few words that which I say in volumes!!! It was though, to this I was alluding when I said he could not exist without her. Idle threat on his part? I'm inclined to think not. As you so rightly observe-an unhealthy psychological dependence and it may well have been a dawning knowledge of this which prompted her letter,she may suddenly have heard, too late, the word RUN. Suddenly realised, now that they were apart and she had space to evaluate her position, that the potato was just too damned hot. To me, the letter quite clearly says ..."I want out." It was less about them being a disaster together than him being a disaster for her. At some point it must have dawned on her that he had much more riding on their relationship than she had and any opportunity for escape was long gone. Was there a moment of blind terror? I can't imagine there wasn't. I'm experiencing a sense of entrapment, God knows what she felt. In her defence, I don't believe she knew what she was getting into and had it ever been possible for her to see into the future unfolding before her would she have made the same choices?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I hadn't heard this story before, but I find it quite believable. Do you mind if I ask you where you found this item? I believe that he absolutely needed her in some way.
I don't remember specifically David threatening to cut his throat (pardon my memory VM! :flowers:) however, I do remember David threatening to kill himself. Try Hugo Vickers The Private world of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Greg Kings The Duchess of Windsor: The uncommon life of Wallis Simpson.
 
I hadn't heard this story before, but I find it quite believable. Do you mind if I ask you where you found this item? I believe that he absolutely needed her in some way.

I don't remember specifically David threatening to cut his throat (pardon my memory VM! :flowers:) however, I do remember David threatening to kill himself. Try Hugo Vickers The Private world of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor and Greg Kings The Duchess of Windsor: The uncommon life of Wallis Simpson.

Thank you, Tsaritsa, for your kind words but I cannot claim credit for summarizing your thoughtful observations. I found the recount of Edward's threat to "cut his throat" most recently in The Queen Mother by Shawcross, p. 366. I used my Christmas present of a Borders gift card to purchase the soft cover version of the Queen Mother's biography before the book chain declared bankruptcy. Shawcross credits the story to Philip Ziegler who wrote King Edward VIII and I also have a copy of that. Ziegler kind of slips this story in at the end of a paragraph on p. 287. Ziegler credits the notes of the second Earl Baldwin from his conversation with Tommy Lascelles who was the King's private secretary during the abdication crisis and overheard the King's conversation with Mrs. Simpson via the telephone.
 
Back
Top Bottom