The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #61  
Old 04-23-2011, 09:56 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russophile View Post
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?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 04-24-2011, 06:18 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
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?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 04-24-2011, 06:24 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,188
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.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 04-24-2011, 07:32 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 103
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.
Quote:
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 04-25-2011, 12:17 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,844
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-25-2011, 05:23 PM
Leslie2006's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 445
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 04-25-2011, 05:56 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 04-25-2011, 08:24 PM
Leslie2006's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 445
Oops yep. I got carried away. Peter is actually Mark's second name. lol
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-25-2011, 08:49 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-25-2011, 08:58 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leslie2006
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!

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Thank you for that info too! Very interesting stuff :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 04-26-2011, 12:41 AM
IloveCP's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Palm Springs, United States
Posts: 4,897
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 04-26-2011, 12:47 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,153
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-26-2011, 04:12 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-26-2011, 05:49 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 28
Hi Russophile

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

Spratsmum
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-26-2011, 08:08 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 3,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by MRSJ View Post
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.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-26-2011, 08:45 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
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.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-26-2011, 08:50 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 386
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
  • 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 )
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-28-2011, 06:41 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by spratsmum View Post
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!
__________________
"Not MGM, not the press, not anyone can tell me what to do."--Ava Gardner
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 04-29-2011, 02:33 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
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!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 05-03-2011, 05:50 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsaritsa View Post
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!
__________________

__________________
"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 92 07-27-2014 08:26 PM
The Queen: would she consider abdication or retirement? sara1981 Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh 838 07-13-2014 05:25 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




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth bourbon-parma charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman picture of the month pieter van vollenhoven pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:14 PM.

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]