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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well, if you've check out the latest over in the Russian forum, you should know that it takes a lot of time to sort out DNA claims. I would imagine that someone claiming to be an offspring of Wallis and David (if they were alive) would have a devil of a time trying to prove it as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Someone would have to co-operate as well. Prince Philip did, which enabled them to identify the Russian royal family.
There was a book recently in Portugal, a family claiming to be descended from Queen Victoria and the Duke of Wellington, it was hilarious, but unintentionally as they had one page in Portuguese and the facing page in Babelfish English. A classic.
Menarue
 
Rather than get sidetracked onto the Duke of Wellington and Queen Victoria could we stick to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor please. :)
 
I might have mentioned this before... but once, when I lived in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, (back in the 80s) I met an elderly man who had known Wallis when her first husband was stationed in Pensacola, Florida. This elderly man said that he had enjoyed dancing with her and he thought she was wonderful. (I got the impression that she was one of those women that men really enjoyed.)

Personally, I'm a little torn about Wallis. I don't really understand a king who would turn his back on his duty, or a woman who would encourage/tolerate that kind of behavior...
 
IB, all the books that I have read on Wallis state that she loved the limelight, the glitter, but when push came to shove, David made the choice for them. Is there any doubt she loved him? No, there isn't. I just don't think that they have the passionate love that Charles and Camilla obviously share for each other.
What could she do once he abdicated? She couldn't leave him. She HAD to marry him.
David really didn't want to rule, some books say, and other quote his father as saying that he'd ruin the Kingdom in 6 months.
I think Bertie was a much better choice for a monarch.
 
I think they were both self-indulgent and selfish, however, it is clear today The Duke wanted to abdicate right from the start, which went back quite a few years before George V died. He just didn't want to be King, which Wallis had no idea about until it was too late.

She most definitely did not want him to abdicate and was adamant that he sacrifice his personal desires in the name of his duty as King. But once the ball started rolling, it became impossible to stop.
 
She most definitely did not want him to abdicate and was adamant that he sacrifice his personal desires in the name of his duty as King. But once the ball started rolling, it became impossible to stop.
Exactly. And what could she do? "Sorry David, but I'm splitting as well. Sorry you gave your kingdom up for me and I'm not going to be around for the fall out."
Unfortunately, they both made each other's beds. . . .
 
I hope they managed to give each other a measure of happiness. Some of their biographers seemed to be determined to show that they had a thoroughly unhappy life - I hope that isn't the case. It doesn't seem to be, but I suppose you can never really tell.
 
I don't think they had a wonderful life. The Duke suffered from bouts of depression and the constant humiliations from his family certainly weren't pleasant.

But I do think they were very happy together.
 
I remember the editorial in the main Sydney broadsheet when the Duke died. It summed up his life as empty and wasted. Maybe the Duke had a sense of that as well. From "Prince of Wales Superstar" in the 1920s, to a largely irrelevant and forgotten figure in Paris a few decades later, it was quite a fall from grace.
 
I hope they managed to give each other a measure of happiness. Some of their biographers seemed to be determined to show that they had a thoroughly unhappy life - I hope that isn't the case. It doesn't seem to be, but I suppose you can never really tell.
I believe they had a "happy" life, but not a very "fulfilling" one. They had parties, they had friends, Aline, Countess of the Ramones (I know I spelled that wrong-whoops!) was a big supporter, they traveled. they were always dressed to the 9's. But I don't think they had anything that they were really passionate about to fulfill their lives.
 
There are certainly allegations that the Duchess cheated on him after the marriage and treated him rather badly.

I think part of the problem was that after the abdication they didn't know how to spend their lives. Remember how the Duke tried to retain some of his prestige during World War II and how quickly Bertie and Elizabeth cut him off. (Of course, Bertie really had to curtail any possibility of a second court, especially during wartime.) But how should an ex-king spend his time? There haven't been many successful examples, unless the monarch was elderly (I'm thinking of The Netherlands in particular).

The Countess of the Ramones wrote a book (I think it was called The Spy Wore Red) about her espionage activities and her friendship with the Windsors. I enjoyed the book very much.
 
Aline wrote 3 books, one of which is "The Spy went Dancing". I can't remember the name of the other one. Peter says she might have fudged on some stuff though. :D

One book I read on the Duchess had David walking in on her and Jimmy Donohue (cousin of Barbara Hutton, in fact, it may have been the "Poor Little Rich Girl" book that came from) where she told him "Look David! I'm Queen of the Fairies!" which had David reduced to tears.

What exactly does a King do? What was David QUALIFIED for besides looking dapper? He was bred to rule. So it was a bit of a jolt not to be able to do anything. I think Prince Charles and Prince Andrew are much more well-rounded individuals. If the Throne went tomorrow (God forbid!) I don't think Prince Charles would have any lack of activities to fill his life with and it would be full. Especially with the Woman He Loves by his side. :flowers:
 
What exactly does a King do? What was David QUALIFIED for besides looking dapper? He was bred to rule. So it was a bit of a jolt not to be able to do anything. . . . :flowers:
He may have been bred to rule but all he did as Prince of Wales was party, womanise and party even more. I haven't read anything much about what he may have contributed as POW, what charities did he support, what minor King-in-Waiting anything did he do except please himself? :argh:

And to top it all off he was politically niaive, and totally out of touch with his subjects, barring the rarified society in which he moved. Worse, he didn't even bother trying. He simply expected that he could have whatever he wanted whenever he wanted it. :doh:

Surprise, surprise, his family, the govenment and the majority of his subjects saw it differently. :nonono:
 
He may have been bred to rule but all he did as Prince of Wales was party, womanise and party even more. I haven't read anything much about what he may have contributed as POW, what charities did he support, what minor King-in-Waiting anything did he do except please himself? :argh:

He went on a lot of long overseas tours, particularly to parts of the Empire. Although there was a fair bit of pleasing himself involved, the general opinion seemed to be that he worked hard and did a good job at representing Britain.

And to top it all off he was politically niaive, and totally out of touch with his subjects, barring the rarified society in which he moved. Worse, he didn't even bother trying. He simply expected that he could have whatever he wanted whenever he wanted it. :doh:

Surprise, surprise, his family, the govenment and the majority of his subjects saw it differently. :nonono:

Apparently he was very popular right up until the scandal about Wallis broke - so much so that the government was afraid that he might be able to rally public support behind him if he was allowed to appeal to the public. His family and the government saw it differently with a few exceptions, but he wasn't that much of a worthless waste of space.
 
Apparently he was very popular right up until the scandal about Wallis broke . . .
Of course he was popular. He was, young, handsome, rich, titled, a Prince, and of course, the next King. They were the grey days of the Great Depression and wierdly enough reports, photos and newsreels of him living life large, the fact that he was very attractive to women, all of those charismatic "quantity X" factors, did much to raise peoples spirits. They were proud of their Prince!

America had their silver screen idols, Douglas Fairbanks et al. Britain had the real thing, the Prince of Wales.

. . . so much so that the government was afraid that he might be able to rally public support behind him if he was allowed to appeal to the public.
The government was also as much out of touch with "the common man (or woman)" in thinking this as, in the minds of the majority of his "Subjects", men didn't marry their mistresses and their King certainly couldn't marry a (twice divorced) courtesan.

When all was said and done all that was left was a sad little life spend in the endless pursuit of some kind of purpose. It may also explain the incredibly poor judgement regarding the Nazi Party fiasco.
 
Of course he was popular. He was, young, handsome, rich, titled, a Prince, and of course, the next King. They were the grey days of the Great Depression and wierdly enough reports, photos and newsreels of him living life large, the fact that he was very attractive to women, all of those charismatic "quantity X" factors, did much to raise peoples spirits. They were proud of their Prince!

People also felt that he cared about them. Royals, even with their very different lifestyle, can often connect with the people in ways that politicians can't, and he seemed to have that quality.


The government was also as much out of touch with "the common man (or woman)" in thinking this as, in the minds of the majority of his "Subjects", men didn't marry their mistresses and their King certainly couldn't marry a (twice divorced) courtesan.

It sounded as though Baldwin and the Archbishop were rather concerned that after the initial shock, the people might come round to the idea. They probably wouldn't have, but I'm not sure it was that much of a done deal.

When all was said and done all that was left was a sad little life spend in the endless pursuit of some kind of purpose. It may also explain the incredibly poor judgement regarding the Nazi Party fiasco.

That wasn't entirely their fault. He wanted to serve his country, but on the condition that the Establishment recognise Wallis. The Establishment, mostly in the persons of Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary, refused. Sure, he could have gone off and done good deeds in France, but he was British and he wanted to connect with his country.
 
The understanding I am talking about is not the feelings of the public for her it was the very strong feeling of loyalty and tradition that surround the British royal family, I don´t think that she understood ever what royalty meant. She gave the Queen mother a nickname, Cookie, said she had no class. She visited the then Duke and Duchess of York (later King George VI and Queen Elizabeth) at Balmoral and suggested removing a hill and some trees to better the view....She treated the royal servants in a way that they were definitely not accustomed to, made them get up or stay up to all hours to make sandwiches and serve her guests.
David showered jewellery on her, and while doing so he was reducing the salaries of some of the royal servants.
She was worried before the abdication it is true, but in my opinion she had banked on being accepted as Queen and a David without title and power wasn´t so attractive to her.
After the abdication she took a King and turned him into a party goer who spent most of the rest of his life worshipping at her feet and if you can believe his biographers pinching pennies. If he had shown promise as a young Prince it was taken away by his obsession for a well-dressed ambitious
woman.
I hope that he did have a happy life but somehow I doubt it.


She told everyone that she did everything possible to stop David from giving up his throne but she was on the phone to him every day telling him what to do.
 
The understanding I am talking about is not the feelings of the public for her it was the very strong feeling of loyalty and tradition that surround the British royal family, I don´t think that she understood ever what royalty meant. She gave the Queen mother a nickname, Cookie, said she had no class. She visited the then Duke and Duchess of York (later King George VI and Queen Elizabeth) at Balmoral and suggested removing a hill and some trees to better the view.....
Cookie? Cookie! No Class! Could anything have been more insulting to the Queen because Wallace was never noted for her tact and diplomacy. I bet she heard every little insult, which begs the question: if she didn't think the Queen of England had any "class", did she think that she was far superior and thus fit to be the next Queen? :lol:

If she held the Queen in contempt, how much more would she have felt that the Duke and Duchess of York were "provincial" and definitely not have any class whatsoever. It also showed that the Duke and Duchess of York would have had more than one reason to hold her in contempt. :ohmy:

I didn't understand why they never had children, but it seems that David always intended his brother to succeed him, just not that soon. :whistling:
 
Last edited:
Sympathy for Edward

The British have been fed decades of propaganda about how perfect Bertie and Elizabeth were and what monsters Edward and Wallis were; it isn't until fairly recently that books and articles sympathetic to the Duke and Duchess have really started to appear. The Queen Mother has always been portrayed in the media as a sweet and harmless national granny figure, whereas the truth appears to be somewhat less sugar-coated. As Idriel said, the truth is almost certainly somewhere between the two extremes, but in Britain one side has been free to present its version and the other side hasn't.

I can't agree with this, Elspeth. The other side has always been free to present its version. There have been more sympathetic stories lately, however.

I am Australian. My mother has a very bad opinion of Edward and Wallis. She remembers his tour and how he offered to help the Welsh miners and how disillusioned people were when he abdicated. She thinks that he was quite pro-Nazi and no good and that Wallis was a gold-digger who wanted to be Queen. I am a bit more sympathetic, but not much!

Regards,
Attaining Grace
bookaddiction
 
I didn't understand why they never had children, but it seems that David always intended his brother to succeed him, just not that soon. :whistling:

I don't think they could have children, though I'm not entirely sure they wanted them either way. If he'd stayed on as King, I certainly think Elizabeth would've still been Queen, perhaps a bit later on though. He probably would've never married, opting for the Elizabeth I method and refusing to marry anyone but Wallis. I have trouble seeing him marrying a suitable royal virgin anyway. Not really his type.
 
I do remember a quote Wallis gave over a game of bridge. Someone had asked about her and David having children and she had replied that he wasn't "Heir conditioned."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My own, historically prejudiced view, is that Wallis Simpson is one of the most maligned persons of C20.

I noted, particularly, that the most disreputable stories pertaining to her did not surface until after her death when the reporters and purveyors of attacks upon her could not be challenged in law.

My grandparents, who were au fait with events at the time, always insisted that animosity towards Wallis was predicated on the fact that she was (gasp!) an American, and secondly, that HM, The Queen Mother, had an irrational dislike of her.

Be that as it all may, the fact is that poor Wallis died as unhappily as any human being could.

It's always puzzled me as to why Wallis is always portrayed as an attack on the Throne and stability, and not her husband, who was raised to know better.
 
My own, historically prejudiced view, is that Wallis Simpson is one of the most maligned persons of C20.

I share your view.

It's always puzzled me as to why Wallis is always portrayed as an attack on the Throne and stability, and not her husband, who was raised to know better.

Same reason Camilla is blamed for the breakdown of Charles & Diana's marriage. Same reason Eve was blamed for Adam taking the apple. Same reason Moslem women are expected to keep their charms covered. Women are either madonnas or they're whores. I.e., the simple old fashioned double standards and sex discrimination inherent in a patriarchal society.
 
Well I disagree with that. It was a most unfortunate situation for Wallis because she was already on her 2nd marriage. 2 marriages have gone wrong, didn't bode well for the success of a 3rd. And whether it was luck or the fact that she simply could NOT EVER divorce David, it's hard to say. I don't think we'll ever know.
I do agree that she's been maligned, but then again, I'm looking at her from 2008 eyes and not 1938 eyes. Strictures were a lot different back then.
 
I share your view. I.e., the simple old fashioned double standards and sex discrimination inherent in a patriarchal society.
Me, I think we have more to worry about from the matriarchal side. Those throwing rolls in the supermarket were not men. I believe women are harder on women, and the fact that neither the Queen nor the Duchess of York liked Wallace backs that theory. If the Queen and Duchess had backed the relationship (pigs might fly) I believe that Balwin and the government would have caved.
 
That goes in for a lot of conjecture. I think both of those strong women would have done it for their families sake but neither wanted to make the first move.
 
Same reason Camilla is blamed for the breakdown of Charles & Diana's marriage. Same reason Eve was blamed for Adam taking the apple. Same reason Moslem women are expected to keep their charms covered. Women are either madonnas or they're whores. I.e., the simple old fashioned double standards and sex discrimination inherent in a patriarchal society.

I think there's also an element of the group coming together to blame the outsider. Much better for the monarchy if poor David was portrayed as rather innocent and gullible and in the clutches of an adventuress than to hint that he was a self-centred weakling who wasn't suitable to become King and didn't particularly want to anyway. The latter would cast some doubt on the ability of the system to deliver a worthwhile head of state, but the former would place the blame firmly outside the system.
 
I do remember a quote Wallis gave over a game of bridge. Someone had asked about her and David having children and she had replied that he wasn't "Heir conditioned."
I have read in more than one book that the then POW had mumps around age 20, which well might have rendered him sterile.
 
Back
Top Bottom