The Abdication: December 11, 1936

[Vasillisos Markos]

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!

Russo my dear,

At the risk of being moved for being off-topic, I believe Spratsmum was referring to authors on this thread, not to any books about Wallis. At least it seems that way to me.

Now, in order not to be removed or transferred, let me ask a question about the abdication. I knew that Edward VIII was unduly upset by the death of his father, not so much because he lost his father but because now he was trapped -- the crown was on his head and there could be no escape short of abdicating. But what do others know about his shirk of duties during the brief period leading up to the abidcation? For instance, he was to open the Aberdeen Infirmary in September but would not because he was mourning his father. He passed this duty on to the Duke of York. Yet, while the Duke was opening the infirmary, the King appeared in Abderdeen and helped Wallis and some friends off a train and whisked them to Balmoral. Mourning, indeed. How many times did he abandon his duties that year?

 

[Tsaritsa]

Good morning VM and Happy Easter. I don't believe we are given much insight into the daily happenings of his brief reign, other than those involving Wallis, which seemed to fill most of his time but I think we have some insight as to how that reign might have evolved. He probably would have cherry-picked anything which amused him and delegated that which didn't. Ziegler,I think it is he, tells us that when The Red Boxes were returned from the fort (Belvedere) they had been used as drinks mats!!!........but if you believe, as do I, that psychologically and emotionally he had the capricious and undeveloped mind of a prepubescent boy it follows that he would be unwilling-unable-to focus on anything which didn't hold his limited attention span.
Off topic, if I may, for just a second,delightful Hugo Vickers, in his new book about the tragedy of Wallis's years of widowhood corroborates all I have said here about WEs' personalities and their psychological enmeshment. Is it still possible for us to believe that theirs' was the Royal love story to end them all?

 

[Zonk]

I've read about a variety of different things that Edward did prior to his Abdication that were red flags so to speak.

Of course, there is the situation in Aberdeen, and conern of the Red Boxes. I've also read that there was such a fear that anyone could be reading the documents, that this was the first time that they were prescreened before being seen by the Monarch. Meaning that they didn't wany anything too sensitive to be seen by others.

Other instances included not meeting with government officials on a regular. There would be appointments that he would disregard, or he would keep government ministers waiting for hours when they had scheduled appointments. And then he would call at all hours of the night when he was ready to talk about some issue.

 

[pacomartin]

The following news article that was written when Prince Edward was only age 35 and still 7 years before the abdication was very enlightening for me. The article paints a picture of a man who is clearly conflicted about becoming king. He is a man who sounds like a taunting man-child. There are increasing stories that have been released in recent years, where close colleagues of the Prince of Wales say they would fantasize about how much better the kingdom would be if he simply broke his neck. Since they were often the people who you would expect to call for help in an emergency, the comments are very telling.

Clearly the topic of his abdication was not so sensitive that it couldn't be discussed in an American news magazine as early as 1929.

P'incess Is Three
Monday, Apr. 29, 1929

If Death should come soon and suddenly to three men—George V. Edward of Wales, the Duke of York—England would have another Virgin Queen Elizabeth. Last week, romping in a yellow frock, the Princess Elizabeth passed her third birthday. She does not know that she is but three removes from the Throne; in fact she has only very recently discovered that she is a "P'incess." It is barely a fortnight ago that she knocked with chubby fist upon a door, and when her mother called "Who's there?" answered in an important little voice, "Lilybet, the P'incess." "Lilybet's" mother, Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York, is herself only two removes from becoming "Queen Elizabeth"—which title is constantly and teasingly applied to her by Edward of Wales. She would be less than human if she did not sometimes wonder how much truth there is in the story that he once said he would renounce his rights upon the death of George V—which would make her nickname come true. If there is a woman in England who can remain unperturbed by the teasing of Edward of Wales it is certainly the fresh, buxom, altogether "jolly" little Duchess, but with a Throne in the balance it must be a trifle nerve-wracking to be called "Queen Elizabeth" by a man who can make you that. Like a sensible mother, the Duchess took her daughter into the country for the birthday party. "Are we going to G'annie's or G'anma's?" the baby Princess asked, and the Duchess smiled, "To G'annie's, dear." This was important. Her Majesty the Queen and Empress Mary is "G'anma." "G'annie" is the Countess of Strathmore. The particular one of "G'annie's" estates to which they were going was St. Paul's, Waldenbury, Hertfordshire; a vast, yet cosy rose-brick house in which the Duchess of York was born Aug. 4, 1900. It would have been altogether unsuitable to have gone for a birthday party to "G'anpa and G'annie's" dour, ancestral Glamis Castle in Scotland, according to legend the very same in which, as Shakespeare has told, Macbeth did murder Duncan. Presents for their daughter are more of a problem to the Duke & Duchess of York than to the parents of most three-year-olds. For example, on their tour of Australia (TIME, Jan. 17, et seq.) they were obliged to accept and bring home "for Baby Betty" no less than three tons of toys and precisely 20 fine squawking parrots. The Duchess cannot appear at a bazaar, lay a cornerstone, or address the Girl Guides (of which she is one) without having pressed upon her—"for Baby Betty, the darling!"—everything from four-leaf clovers offered by grubby children to the historic lace diaper presented by a beaming Irish woman with a shawl over her head. An efficient staff was busy all last week dealing with birthday presents; but to find out which of the vast collection ever reached the "P'incess" would be like probing a state secret. Two sure bets: the mechanical monkey sent by Queen Mary, the Cairn terrier pup from Edward of Wales. Even in the U. S. there are babes who ape the styles set by "Baby Betty." Several smart Manhattan stores offer imported "Princess Elizabeth prams" (perambulators) at $250 each. Yellow, however, is the "P'incess's" real achievement, or rather her mother's. The test was made last week of strolling into H. Gordon Selfridge's famed "First in London" department store, and asking a salesperson at the baby counter about yellow.
"Now two years ago, mind you," said the salesperson, "if anyone wanted yellow things for a baby we should have had to order them specially. Pink or blue or white were the colors then. Now every mother, almost, wants to buy a little yellow frock or a primrose bonnet like Princess Elizabeth's."

Read more: Foreign News: P'incess Is Three - TIME

 

[MRSJ]

Can anyone answer the question why is it Edward couldn't marry a divorce women due to him being head of Church of England (and the church not recognizing divorce) but Charles, who will be head, can marry a divorce woman plus he himself is divorced?

 

[Leslie2006]

To answer your question MRSJ, it was a different time in 1936; divorce was something that simply wasn't done back then. It's the same reason Charles wasn't allowed to marry Camilla before - she had had boyfriends, lovers, ect in the past; basically she had a past, and wasn't a virgin. Therefore, Diana, who was a virgin, young and pretty, was what the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh wanted their son to marry in order be certain that the children Charles' wife bore him were in fact his by blood. Because Camilla had a past, they couldn't be certain of that with her. Divorce is also the reason Princess Margaret wasn't allowed to marry the love her life, Captain Peter Townsend; he had been divorced. When Charles and Camilla were finally allowed to marry in 2005, things had changed. Three out of 4 of the Queen's children (including Charles) had been divorced, and her daughter Anne had remarried. I think then, the Queen realized times had changed. Being divorced wasn't such a big deal anymore, the elderly generation of the royal family (the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, KGV, Queen Alexandra, ect) who represented the stiffness and protocol of the monarchy were gone. There was no longer anyone around to enforce the 'rules'. And as I stated before, Anne was allowed to remarry in 1992, therefore it would be unfair to not allow Charles remarry as well. The only one of the Queen's children who hasn't divorced is Prince Edward. The monarchy is much more relaxed about divorce and all that now because of what happened with Charles and Diana, and perhaps even Princess Margaret. The Queen finally learned that if you force someone to marry a person they don't love, a divorce will eventually happen. Just because a potential spouse has been previously married doesn't mean their second marriage won't last.

Charles is clearly happy with Camilla. Both have been divorced, both have 2 children from their previous marriages. No big deal now....but it wouldn't have ever been allowed back then. It was just unthinkable.

Anne's first marriage to Peter Phillips didn't last because he cheated. Same goes for Princess Margaret's marriage to Antony Armstrong-Jones; it was the Queen Mother - Margaret's own mother! - who refused to allow her permission to marry Townsend...because he was divorced with two children. Queen Elizabeth II wanted to grant her sister permission, but she was swayed otherwise by their mother. Also, when Edward VIII died, it was Queen Elizabeth II who allowed Wallis Simpson, then the Duchess of Windsor to come to the former king's funeral; she accepted Wallis when the older generation of the BRF refused to. So to sum up the answer to your question, it was a different time back then, different generation of royals running the country, and different values.

Also, I believe George VI would have become king in the end anyway because Edward VIII could not have children. So even if he hadn't married Wallis, he probably would've ended up a childless bachelor. And of course, the throne would've gone to his brother, Bertie.

 

[MRSJ]

To answer your question MRSJ, it was a different time in 1936; divorce was something that simply wasn't done back then. It's the same reason Charles wasn't allowed to marry Camilla before - she had had boyfriends, lovers, ect in the past; basically she had a past, and wasn't a virgin. Therefore, Diana, who was a virgin, young and pretty, was what the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh wanted their son to marry in order be certain that the children Charles' wife bore him were in fact his by blood. Because Camilla had a past, they couldn't be certain of that with her. Divorce is also the reason Princess Margaret wasn't allowed to marry the love her life, Captain Peter Townsend; he had been divorced. When Charles and Camilla were finally allowed to marry in 2005, things had changed. Three out of 4 of the Queen's children (including Charles) had been divorced, and her daughter Anne had remarried. I think then, the Queen realized times had changed. Being divorced wasn't such a big deal anymore, the elderly generation of the royal family (the Queen Mother, Queen Mary, KGV, Queen Alexandra, ect) who represented the stiffness and protocol of the monarchy were gone. There was no longer anyone around to enforce the 'rules'. And as I stated before, Anne was allowed to remarry in 1992, therefore it would be unfair to not allow Charles remarry as well. The only one of the Queen's children who hasn't divorced is Prince Edward. The monarchy is much more relaxed about divorce and all that now because of what happened with Charles and Diana, and perhaps even Princess Margaret. The Queen finally learned that if you force someone to marry a person they don't love, a divorce will eventually happen. Just because a potential spouse has been previously married doesn't mean their second marriage won't last.

Charles is clearly happy with Camilla. Both have been divorced, both have 2 children from their previous marriages. No big deal now....but it wouldn't have ever been allowed back then. It was just unthinkable.

Anne's first marriage to Peter Phillips didn't last because he cheated. Same goes for Princess Margaret's marriage to Antony Armstrong-Jones; it was the Queen Mother - Margaret's own mother! - who refused to allow her permission to marry Townsend...because he was divorced with two children. Queen Elizabeth II wanted to grant her sister permission, but she was swayed otherwise by their mother. Also, when Edward VIII died, it was Queen Elizabeth II who allowed Wallis Simpson, then the Duchess of Windsor to come to the former king's funeral; she accepted Wallis when the older generation of the BRF refused to. So to sum up the answer to your question, it was a different time back then, different generation of royals running the country, and different values.

Also, I believe George VI would have become king in the end anyway because Edward VIII could not have children. So even if he hadn't married Wallis, he probably would've ended up a childless bachelor. And of course, the throne would've gone to his brother, Bertie.

Thank you for that very well stated and informative answer, I appreciate it!

One tiny thing, Anne's first husband wasn't Peter Phillips, that's her son...His name was Mark Phillips

 

[Leslie2006]

Oops yep. I got carried away. Peter is actually Mark's second name. lol

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Also, King Edward VIII lacked the will and fortitude to go up against his ministers and parliament and public opinion and just marry the woman. He had clearly been thinking about his suitability for the role for quite some time - I think he just didn't want to be King. As King, he could have insisted on marrying whomever he wanted (and ignored the advice of everyone), then waited to see what kinds of moves were really taken against him. It could have gotten ugly, I suppose, financially (although he would have had his fortune still, as he ended up with much of it anyway).

If he'd had the personality of some former kings, that's what he would have done. But I think he and Bertie were both beaten down by their dad and it just wasn't possible - his own mother told him he couldn't do it and she wouldn't accept it. But I believe she would have given in to him and gone to court and accepted the new wife, had it been demanded by the King.

The fact that everyone in his family was lukewarm to adamantly against Wallis was a huge factor in his decision, at the time, I think he thought he'd get his family back through abdicating, which is not what happened.

I don't think he was a particularly far-thinking person in the first place, and loved bucking tradition, but was not courageous enough to push the limits of the power of the monarchy or public opinion. It would definitely have weakened the monarchy, so perhaps he did think far, in that way.

I think Wallis was horrified that he abdicated and had in mind herself as Queen of England and never once thought (until the chance was gone) that that's how her life was going to go - she thought she could push him to make her Queen.

 

[MRSJ]

Oops yep. I got carried away. Peter is actually Mark's second name. lol

Ah a new fact to add to my royal knowledge, thank you!

Also, King Edward VIII lacked the will and fortitude to go up against his ministers and parliament and public opinion and just marry the woman. He had clearly been thinking about his suitability for the role for quite some time - I think he just didn't want to be King. As King, he could have insisted on marrying whomever he wanted (and ignored the advice of everyone), then waited to see what kinds of moves were really taken against him. It could have gotten ugly, I suppose, financially (although he would have had his fortune still, as he ended up with much of it anyway).

If he'd had the personality of some former kings, that's what he would have done. But I think he and Bertie were both beaten down by their dad and it just wasn't possible - his own mother told him he couldn't do it and she wouldn't accept it. But I believe she would have given in to him and gone to court and accepted the new wife, had it been demanded by the King.

The fact that everyone in his family was lukewarm to adamantly against Wallis was a huge factor in his decision, at the time, I think he thought he'd get his family back through abdicating, which is not what happened.

I don't think he was a particularly far-thinking person in the first place, and loved bucking tradition, but was not courageous enough to push the limits of the power of the monarchy or public opinion. It would definitely have weakened the monarchy, so perhaps he did think far, in that way.

I think Wallis was horrified that he abdicated and had in mind herself as Queen of England and never once thought (until the chance was gone) that that's how her life was going to go - she thought she could push him to make her Queen.

Thank you for that info too! Very interesting stuff

 

[IloveCP]

I know there was a lot of backlash of this event but,if I were him i would have done the same.I think love is more important than being a monarch.

 

[Mermaid1962]

That would have been unconstitutional and would have landed Edward VIII in even more hot water with the Prime Minister and cabinet. The nation could have been divided over the issue. A constitutional monarch acting against the advice of the Prime Minister is a very serious matter indeed.

Also, King Edward VIII lacked the will and fortitude to go up against his ministers and parliament and public opinion and just marry the woman.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Also, King Edward VIII lacked the will and fortitude to go up against his ministers and parliament and public opinion and just marry the woman.

We really don't know what the public's opinion was as they were never really given a chance to show it - although it seems that many were on his side.

What we do know is that the PM said he would resign over the issue and that would have meant an election fought over the issue of the King's wife - what would happen if the King lost? What would be the situation if the King won? Too dangerous and he knew - as a constitutional monarch that he couldn't let the issue become an election issue - and even worse the election issue.

 

[spratsmum]

Hi Russophile

Regarding the lack of bed antics of the DoW with her earlier husbands, I was referring to post on this forum.

Spratsmum

 

[MARG]

Can anyone answer the question why is it Edward couldn't marry a divorce women due to him being head of Church of England (and the church not recognizing divorce) but Charles, who will be head, can marry a divorce woman plus he himself is divorced?

I believe it is important to remember that Edward marrying was impossible of more than one front"

• Wallis was not once but twice divorced (and if the released files of the FBI and British Secret Service are to be believed, she was cheating on both her second husband but also her lover, Edward, with yet another man. In the eyes of most "decent" people in 1936 that would have made her a harlot, neither fit nor eligible to be Queen.
• In light of the above, there was no way on God's green earth that the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor indeed any other Bishop would or could have performed the service. At that stage the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church held the same views on divorce. Consequently, Edward demanding such a marriage put him at odds with the very church of which he was now Head. (But let's face it, it's not like he and Wallis fronted at the local Church every Sunday . . . anything but!)
• Prince Charles marriage to the Duchess of Cornwall took place in the following Century in the year 2005. The church has loosened up on it's position regarding divorce and whether or not to perform a marriage of a divorcée seems to be up to the individual Priest's interpretation of the General Synod's 2002 guidelines.

To be honest, the church's stance on divorce and remarriage seems a unbelievably hypocritical since that is the base line for the breach with Rome during Henry VIII reign for all the "religious differences" created to seal the division.

 

[Zonk]

Also, King Edward VIII lacked the will and fortitude to go up against his ministers and parliament and public opinion and just marry the woman. He had clearly been thinking about his suitability for the role for quite some time - I think he just didn't want to be King. As King, he could have insisted on marrying whomever he wanted (and ignored the advice of everyone), then waited to see what kinds of moves were really taken against him. It could have gotten ugly, I suppose, financially (although he would have had his fortune still, as he ended up with much of it anyway).

If he'd had the personality of some former kings, that's what he would have done. But I think he and Bertie were both beaten down by their dad and it just wasn't possible - his own mother told him he couldn't do it and she wouldn't accept it. But I believe she would have given in to him and gone to court and accepted the new wife, had it been demanded by the King.

The fact that everyone in his family was lukewarm to adamantly against Wallis was a huge factor in his decision, at the time, I think he thought he'd get his family back through abdicating, which is not what happened.

I don't think he was a particularly far-thinking person in the first place, and loved bucking tradition, but was not courageous enough to push the limits of the power of the monarchy or public opinion. It would definitely have weakened the monarchy, so perhaps he did think far, in that way.

I think Wallis was horrified that he abdicated and had in mind herself as Queen of England and never once thought (until the chance was gone) that that's how her life was going to go - she thought she could push him to make her Queen.

The family was lukewarm with Wallis simply because they didn't know her (other than the Yorks and the Kents the King and Queen had only met her once at the Kent wedding. I have never read anything that indicated that Mary or the Gloucesters had met her) nor were they given the opportunity to do so. That is partly the fault of the King (who didn't think highly of David's social crowd) and David (who didnt introduce Wallis to his family in a decent setting or until it was too late). First of all, the King and Queen and the Yorks had met Wallis at the engagement party for George and Marina. Hardly the place to introduce the most amazing woman in the world at a party that she is attending with her husband! Understanding of course, that you just didn't introduce anyone (especially a married woman who had already been divorced) to the King.

When the rumours about David and Wallis continue to be thrown about, the King point blank asked David if he was having relations with Wallis and David said No.

Queen Mary even after her husband died did not and would not meet Wallis because she had promised King George V that she would not. She was greatly conflicted by this, it was written in both Mabel, Countess of Airlie book and the Queen Mary book that she was afraid that "David would ask her to receive Wallis." When asked by David to do so, she refused because Wallis was an "adventuress." Which in 2011 talk sounds ridiculous but it was 1936 and "adventuresses" were very much looked down on.

I also agree with the sentiment that Edward would not and could not have just disagreed with his government and married Wallis. Such an action would have led to the resignation of the government in England and possibly the Commonwealth. That wouldn't have gone over well.

 

[Nice Nofret]

• Prince Charles marriage to the Duchess of Cornwall took place in the following Century in the year 2005. The church has loosened up on it's position regarding divorce and whether or not to perform a marriage of a divorcée seems to be up to the individual Priest's interpretation of the General Synod's 2002 guidelines.

To be honest, the church's stance on divorce and remarriage seems a unbelievably hypocritical since that is the base line for the breach with Rome during Henry VIII reign for all the "religious differences" created to seal the division.

I understood that The POW and the DOC where married in a civil registry thing - and the church gave only blessings but no marriage vows etc....

(and they where quite harsh on them I thought )

 

[Russophile]

Hi Russophile

Regarding the lack of bed antics of the DoW with her earlier husbands, I was referring to post on this forum.

Spratsmum

Oh bummer. I was hoping to call another book back from the library on that. Oh well. Thanks!

 

[Tsaritsa]

Russophile, there IS a book somewhere which will tell the story because that's where I read it. Wallis, in conversation with Baba Metcalfe on the wedding morning, said she had not had sexual intercourse with either of her husbands. I seem to recall also, something along the lines of "nobody being allowed to touch below the Maginot Line"- where that particular line falls, I can only hazard a guess so I leave you to come to your own conclusions! The book on WE I have with me at all times is the Ziegler bio, the others, too numerous to mention, have just been "passing through" Slightly off topic, perhaps, if you are going to watch the wedding of her great great nephew by marriage-an altogether happier affair than her own, I feel-we'll be raising our glasses to them at the same moment. Enjoy!

 

[Russophile]

Russophile, there IS a book somewhere which will tell the story because that's where I read it. Wallis, in conversation with Baba Metcalfe on the wedding morning, said she had not had sexual intercourse with either of her husbands. I seem to recall also, something along the lines of "nobody being allowed to touch below the Maginot Line"- where that particular line falls, I can only hazard a guess so I leave you to come to your own conclusions! The book on WE I have with me at all times is the Ziegler bio, the others, too numerous to mention, have just been "passing through" Slightly off topic, perhaps, if you are going to watch the wedding of her great great nephew by marriage-an altogether happier affair than her own, I feel-we'll be raising our glasses to them at the same moment. Enjoy!

I'll have to look for it. Thanks! However! The library just informed me my book on the Duchess of Devonshire has arrived and I need to go pick it up!

 

[Lenora]

Some days ago I watched the movie "Bertie and Elizabeth",previously I saw "The King's Speech".The movies were rather good ,but the way Wallis was presented was awful:like a self-absorbed,totally egoistic woman without any sense of duty or respect towards tradition.I do not know how the real Duchess was,but she was depicted as the evil which withdraw Edward from his obligations.Edward was presented rather naive,who hoped for a Crown for his future wife(at first precisely).
The moment that struck me ,was hidden in old-fashioned Queen Marie's words
"To give up that all for woman of no importance!...".
The imporant cause of abdication was not only the establishment,but also the fact that people loved Edward,but hated Wallis("Hands off from our king!")
Though maybe it was better so for all,to make Edward VIII abdicate.I wonder another thing,which would could have been the attitude if Wallis had been younger and surely able to give birth to a child

 

[NGalitzine]

She would still have been a woman with 2 ex husbands still living, not something the church or the establishment or most people could have accepted in 1936. Her abillity to bear children was not a major consideration as she had other more important strikes against her.

 

[pgm1952]

Despite the begrudgingly given title, she will always be Mrs. Simpson to me. I believe she was in it for the attention of a man who could give her the world. It seems that his decision to abdicate completely threw her and she was faced with the prospect of entertaining him for the remainder of her life. In this respect I felt a little sorry for her but I still wonder how sado- masachistic their relationship was...
At the same time she was also the woman who provided the excuse for the government of the day to rid themselves of a radical, Socialist leaning king. The Chinese dossier (a document that stated Mrs. Simpson experienced many and varried sexual encounters when in China with then husband Ernest) was deliberately composed by Baldwin's government and the Church of England for the purpos of horrifying Queen Mary and others who disaproved of her.

In all that is said of the abdication, not much weight is put on how Queen Mary felt or how she attempted to talk her son out of it both directly and indirectly.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

In all that is said of the abdication, not much weight is put on how Queen Mary felt or how she attempted to talk her son out of it both directly and indirectly.

I don't know what you mean by this? Do you mean this thread does not discuss Queen Mary's attempts to dissuade David from abidcating? I think it is very clear that Queen Mary could not believe her eldest son would give up the throne for a twice married woman and did all she possibly could to talk him out of it. It came as quite a blow to her but then she rallied in order to show support for Bertie and to see that the monarchy survived this crisis.

 

[George of Wales]

We were lucky to have the Edward abdicate and get a real king, a man who symbolished national resistance to nazi occupation, His Royal Majesty, King, Defender of the Faith, representing British people both at home and overseas in protecting our fatherland, legendary and epochal Bertie, George VI. Without doubt, one of the best monarchs we ever had. We shall be thankful to Mrs. Simpson for saving Britain from a vile man, David, the man who does not deserve the title he beared.

 

[Next Star]

Edward wanted to be with a woman who was twice divorced that is not good espically in the time frame it took place (1936).Wallis will always
be known as the woman who caused an abdication of the King Edward VIII.

 

[Tsaritsa]

I believe that Wallis unwittingly facilitated, rather than caused, Edwards' abdication because he would have found it impossible to function without the support of a strong, dominant female. It may have ended by being unfortunate for Wallis that she was that person.....but so much better for the country!!!

 

[pgm1952]

I don't know what you mean by this? Do you mean this thread does not discuss Queen Mary's attempts to dissuade David from abidcating? I think it is very clear that Queen Mary could not believe her eldest son would give up the throne for a twice married woman and did all she possibly could to talk him out of it. It came as quite a blow to her but then she rallied in order to show support for Bertie and to see that the monarchy survived this crisis.

What I meant to say is that in all the documentaries I have seen and heard of the abdication, Queen Mary's role is played down or overlooked. It is taken for granted that she was someone who did not like to make a show of herself and thus her influence on him is something of an aftertought by some historians and film- makers. I agree she was devestated by his discision and did all she could to disuade him but that information is sometimes overlooked by film- makers and historians.

 

[NotHRH]

As usual, speculation rears it's ugly head. None of us (?) was privy to the behind-the-scenes goings-on that led to HM King Edward's, later the Duke of Windsor, abdication. I have also come across recent information stating the Duke and the Duchess of Windsor were supporters of Germany's dictator's actions that led to and sustained World War II. From what I understood, they were supporters of the German dictator from the time he declared himself ruler of Germany until his more-than-welcomed demise in 1945.
I will not matter if this speculative subject is proved untrue, there will always be those who believe it is true. Some people dislike being proved wrong.

 

[Aliza]

We were lucky to have the Edward abdicate and get a real king, a man who symbolished national resistance to nazi occupation, His Royal Majesty, King, Defender of the Faith, representing British people both at home and overseas in protecting our fatherland, legendary and epochal Bertie, George VI. Without doubt, one of the best monarchs we ever had. We shall be thankful to Mrs. Simpson for saving Britain from a vile man, David, the man who does not deserve the title he beared.

While I don't agree that David was actually "vile", I do think you're onto something about Wallis doing Britain a favour, although I see it somewhat differently. I think David was sub-consciously LOOKING for a way out of being King and she happened to come along at the right time to be that way out. Otherwise, why not wait until after the Coronation when Abdication would have had much more serious implications and repairing the damage would have been much more difficult. An "annointed" King, crowned, breaking vows he made in Church, in a ceremony the BRF consider as a "Sacrament" would have been in a much stronger position to foist Mrs. Simpson on the nation. I truly believe after reading quite a lot on this subject that he would have found a way out before the Coronation, Wallis or no. Remember that he tried to talk Mrs. Dudley-Ward into "running away" with him in the 1920's when he was PoW.

Maybe he realised himself that he had not the stuff of which good Kings are made. In that case HE also did the UK a big favour. I can not imagine King Edward VIII leading Britain through WWII, to put it mildly! His brother and his Queen did a magnificent job. I can't think of a single action of George VI or Queen Elizabeth that can be criticised during that span of time.

It's interesting to see how many passions this topic still raises (myself included) considering it happened before most of us were born or even before our parents were born. I think that demonstrates how close the psychological bond is between Monarch and People. It will be a long time, if ever, before there is a change to a Republic. Thank God for that, IMHO!