The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 10-07-2010, 03:55 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,266
I have read that there were some concerns about the Duke of York. His stammer and the fact that he was considered "boring." Their concerns not mine. But supposedly they weighed his boringness with the fact that he had a stable marriage and happy family as compared to Kent (his past life i.e. drugs and sex) and Gloucester (also boring and developing a fondess for drink).

But really as Vasillos suggested, it would have been crazy to just disregard the line of succession. Especially since the abdication had/is already putting the monarchy in a tither.

But like his father, George V (another 2nd son who didn't plan on being King) he rose to the occassion.
__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-07-2010, 08:48 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Well said, Zonk.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-08-2010, 01:23 AM
isayoldboy's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 34
I think Prince George's bisexuality is fairly well established, as is his drug habit. I'm not saying he was unsuitable as a king, but since Edward had just abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson it sounds like a completely oddball choice.

Besides, as Zonk said, skipping the Duke of York in the line of succession would have caused all kinds of problems -- at a time when the monarchy had been brought to its knees and a decisive show of leadership was needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
I have read that there were some concerns about the Duke of York. His stammer and the fact that he was considered "boring." Their concerns not mine.
Poor old Bertie. I think he lived his whole life being assumed to be dreadfully boring, or stupid, or weak and timid, when he was really just a cripplingly shy man who'd been overshadowed by his brother. I don't think he was any more or less boring than any other member of his family, unless you count the fact that he didn't have the tumultuous sex life that some of his siblings did. I'd like to challenge this, since I know a few dedicated party animals who are incredibly stultifying to talk to.

As for the Duke of Windsor, Gore Vidal (who has made many such trenchant remarks) said that he had something of "riveting stupidity" to say on any subject. I don't think being "not boring" is a requirement for royalty.

I think there would have been concerns about the fact that the Duke of York was so quiet and retiring. But he stepped up to the plate and arguably performed better than his brother did as King. If anything the lack of scandal in his personal life made him better King material at a time when Edward VIII's indiscretion had made their personal lives so much more public.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-08-2010, 01:52 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by isayoldboy View Post
I think Prince George's bisexuality is fairly well established, as is his drug habit. I'm not saying he was unsuitable as a king, but since Edward had just abdicated to marry Wallis Simpson it sounds like a completely oddball choice.

Besides, as Zonk said, skipping the Duke of York in the line of succession would have caused all kinds of problems -- at a time when the monarchy had been brought to its knees and a decisive show of leadership was needed.
Of course they wouldn't be just skipping one person but four to get to the Duke of Kent - Bertie, Elizabeth, Margaret and The Duke of Gloucester.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-27-2011, 12:02 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterey, United States
Posts: 2,324
What he did was selfish and stupid plain and simple
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-27-2011, 12:08 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,266
I think calling him stupid is a bit over the top IMO. He was selfish but certainly not stupid.

Wallis did the short end of the stick so to speak. She is the primary person who gets blamed for the Abdication (well at least a large percentage of the blame) and really, I think she would have been content to be the "power behind the throne" and just continue as David's mistress. He (David) certainly took a lot upon himself to have a conversation with her husband about her marriage. If Wallis wanted out of the Simpson marriage, than that was a conversation that she should have had with her husband. I do think she cared for him, but he certainly latched on to her. He was definitely looking for a love that he didnt get from his parents.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-27-2011, 12:15 AM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
And I think the Duke did love her, so he should be given credit for that as well. The Greeks have an expression which I will try to spell phonetically: "Oothen kakon amayes kaloo" which roughly means, "Out of something bad comes something good." So the Duke falling in love with a woman who could not become his Queen forced him to choose between her and his duty; he chose her, which was bad for royals but the good came out of George VI taking the throne.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-27-2011, 12:19 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,266
Well it was good and bad for the royals. Good in the since that Edward left since he really wasn't interested in doing his duty and bad that everyone who had a bad marriage after him can lay the groundwork of that marriage to the past of Edward VIII (i.e. Margaret, Charles, etc.)

But I do think he loved her but again in a selfish way (i.e. the discussion with Ernest). And I think she was content (and loved him too).

But back to the Abdication. I mentioned this in another thread...does anyone know why all the brothers (George VI, Edward VIII, DoG, and the DoK) signed the Instrument of Abdication but Mary didn't? That seems kinds of sexist...but I am thinking 2011 Zonk and not 1936 Zonk?
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-27-2011, 12:41 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 44
I still can't get over the fact that if Queen Elizabeth had had a brother, he would have jumped over her and been heir presumptive.........Now that's sexist (I hope they abolish this outlandish law).

The abdication was bad, but it could have been far worse had George VI not been the man he was. He and Queen Elizabeth really limited the damage done by Edward VIII. I used to think Edward VIII and Wallis were this great romantic story, but now when I think of them, all I think of is "selfish".

The Duke loved Wallis, but he appears to have been completely dependent on her - it's not healthy to "love" someone that much. I can't feel sorry for him though given the pest he became to his brother and how he tried to usurp Princess Elizabeth's right to the throne (as his brother was ill, in 1949, I believe).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-27-2011, 01:46 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,248
And, if Elizabeth had a brother to take the throne, she and her children would have enjoyed having each other's company a lot more and Prince Philip would have been able to keep on with his naval career. That's not a bad outcome at all. I'm not one to get "up-in-arms" about the male primogeniture issue, primarily because I think that Prince Charles in particular has suffered from not having a lot of his mother's time during his formative years. Although there have been wonderful queens regnant, I think that children need to spend time with their mothers.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Betsypaige View Post
I still can't get over the fact that if Queen Elizabeth had had a brother, he would have jumped over her and been heir presumptive.........Now that's sexist (I hope they abolish this outlandish law).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-27-2011, 01:48 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,602
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
...does anyone know why all the brothers (George VI, Edward VIII, DoG, and the DoK) signed the Instrument of Abdication but Mary didn't?
There are two valid reasons I can think of:

1. They only wanted/needed the next three adults in line to the throne and Mary was the 4th adult and already down to 7th in line and within a couple of weeks went down to 8th with Princess Alexandra being born on 25th December that year. At that time the line of succession was Duke of York, Elizabeth of York, Margaret of York, Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, Edward of Kent and then The Princess Royal. I say adults as the younger royals - who we now describe as the older royals were all children and so couldn't sign the Abdication document.

2. Another reason may very well be that Mary didn't agree with the decision and so refused to sign it. As for being sexist, I don't think it was that so much as just not necessary to have more than three additional signatures.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-27-2011, 09:06 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Woodbury, United States
Posts: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
And, if Elizabeth had a brother to take the throne, she and her children would have enjoyed having each other's company a lot more and Prince Philip would have been able to keep on with his naval career. That's not a bad outcome at all. I'm not one to get "up-in-arms" about the male primogeniture issue, primarily because I think that Prince Charles in particular has suffered from not having a lot of his mother's time during his formative years. Although there have been wonderful queens regnant, I think that children need to spend time with their mothers.
No doubt it's not a good thing for children of Queens, but they also need to spend time with their fathers, so having their dad on the throne is not ideal either. I'm bothered by the whole idea that primogeniture still exists, but it's not because of Queen Elizabeth only (who I adore). I'm no feminist, but the law is antiquated and just makes no sense whatsoever.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-29-2011, 11:11 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,266
Please note that posts regarding the Duke and Duchess of Windsor have been moved to Duke and Duchess of Windsor (1894-1972) and (1895-1986) .

Let's try to keep this thread focused on the actual Abdication Day: Decemberr 11, 1936.

Thanks!

Zonk

British Forums Moderator
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-11-2011, 06:09 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Strange world we live in. Falling in love is hardly a matter of choice, and I feel badly for people who have never experienced - or think they are in charge of it. Choices can be made about what to do about love, but true love is not a decision.

I'm surprised to learn that Wallis tried to encourage him to stay on the throne, although I understand why, completely. I hope they have her book on Kindle, as I'd love to read it!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-17-2011, 04:54 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 103
Simplest Answer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
But back to the Abdication. I mentioned this in another thread...does anyone know why all the brothers (George VI, Edward VIII, DoG, and the DoK) signed the Instrument of Abdication but Mary didn't? That seems kinds of sexist...but I am thinking 2011 Zonk and not 1936 Zonk?
I would opt for the simplest answer. It didn't affect her standing in any way. There was no discussion of modifying the gender rule.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:02 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 28
I am imaging that the reason the brothers signed the Instrument of Abdication was that were all in line of succession - the abdication changed those rankings.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:53 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 28
I feel that Edward was a spoilt and selfish person. I don't think he believed that the he would allowed to abdicate, he thought he was so loved and popular that he would be able to do as he wished and have the throne as well.

He had an interest in married women only it seemed, playing it safe with no pressure, but Bessiewallis was a different category. She too had an exalted opinion of herself and was out to show the world and the British establishment that she was modern and American and ready to rule the world.

The best outcome was the one that occurred - the life of decadency and wealthy enjoyed by the PoW and his set where so far removed from the reality of most o his subjects. It is interesting to wonder what England's fate would have been under the reign of Edward.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-18-2011, 05:04 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
Spratsmum, you may find interesting my posts on the psychology of David which are on the Duke and Duchess of Windsor thread. I have serious doubts as to whether he ever truly wanted to be king. I believe he was able to use the Wallis situation to worm his way out. The actions of his later life certainly show him as being more dedicated to cafe society than commonwealth duties and the only red boxes in which he showed interest were the ones that held another piece of jewellery for Wallis, for whom I may just have a little more sympathy than you have. She most surely learned that there's no such thing as a free lunch!!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-18-2011, 06:22 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 28
Thank you Tsarista I went and read your articles and we think alike on this subject. I have read many books on them over the years and they are stating to annoy me more and more.

Wallis Simpson is reported on one page of the other thread to have had lovers other than the PoW during her marriage to Edward Simpson. The next page she is quoted as saying she had never had sexual relations with first and second husband. Quite bizarre really.

As I have said I believe that both of them wanted to go along with the status quo, leading a privileged and fantasy life. I think the fuss that was caused by the lack of HRH before the Duchesses name is a case in point - she certainly was no highness, lowness might have been closer to the truth.
When you look at the current PoW there seem to me to increasing similarities with his great uncle, Charles is away in a rarified world, where others wait on his every need and perceived want, and truly his life has been wasted in so many ways, and that is very sad for him. I know that we unaware of how long the Queen would live, but surely it would have been better for Prince Charles to had a career and real job, rather that just wait around.

I quite like the British Royal Family, in particular I feel the Queen has had a difficult role and has carried it out with dignity and grace. Prince Philip and Princess Ann seem also to have found a way around royal roadblocks and made some life for themselves, but as for the rest of the immediate family in earlier days I would have sent them to the Tower.

Thank you again for your link I enjoyed it and look forward to meeting with you again on the boards.

Sandra
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-23-2011, 05:35 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by spratsmum View Post

Wallis Simpson is reported on one page of the other thread to have had lovers other than the PoW during her marriage to Edward Simpson. The next page she is quoted as saying she had never had sexual relations with first and second husband. Quite bizarre really.
Just curious, can you tell which books have said this? I don't remember Wallis not having relations with her first two husbands--of course it's been a few years since Russo read Wallis bios as well. Thanks!
__________________

__________________
"Not MGM, not the press, not anyone can tell me what to do."--Ava Gardner
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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
King George V (1865-1936) elenaris British Royal History 93 10-07-2014 02:19 AM
The Queen: would she consider abdication or retirement? sara1981 Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 840 09-26-2014 10:08 PM
Abdication Issues & Rumours (2008-2013) Marengo Princess Beatrix 166 01-30-2013 06:46 AM
Media blackout 1936 v. today kalnel British Royals 55 11-09-2007 12:51 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:47 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]