The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 06-13-2011, 12:46 PM
Aliza's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Aahhh but there is the rub. I've read in several books (and it was mentioned in the King's Speech but sometimes movies take certain liberities)....Edward despite being the Heir and than King, didn't appear to pay attention when he was tutored on the government and didn't understand the limits of his role (i.e. he had no idea what he could and could not do via the appropriate legislation).



Yes, he was told that if he married Mrs. Simpson without government approval, the government would resign. Thus it would cause even a greater crisis.

Here's the thing.....Edward shouldn't have asked the Prime Minister to get government approval...once he did that he opened a can of worms.
You're right, Zonk. By consulting the PM, he made himself constitutionally bound to accept their "advice". It was a breathtaking misstep from a man being well advised by Walter Monckton IF he really wanted to remain King and keep Mrs. Simpson.

I have to add, I found the depiction of Edward VIII in "The King's Speech" to not ring true to any of the biographies I have read about him, pro or con.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 06-13-2011, 12:53 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,211
The writers of the King's Speech did take some liberities but some of it as a smidgen of truth. He did go searching for champagne at Wallis's bequest, and had no knowledge of consitutional history. I read that in books critical of Edward in books on George VI but not in any specific books on Edward.
__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 06-13-2011, 01:49 PM
Aliza's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 240
Agreed about the champagne, etc; I've even read in "pro" books that David regularly attended to Mrs. Simpson's manicure! I was referring to the portrayal of David making fun of Bertie's stammer and insinuating to the Duke of York that Bertie was hoping to take over as King when nothing could have been further from the truth. I never read anything that portrayed Edward VIII as deliberately cruel; thoughtless and uncaring, yes - but not calculatingly hurtful. I don't think he would have been such a favourite of QEQM as Duchess of York prior to the Mrs. Simpson years if he were that type of man.

BTW, Beaverbrook's desire to back Edward VIII had little to do with the issues at stake. When asked later on why he wanted to do so, he replied readily, "to bugger Baldwin!". Another amusing comment made by Beaverbrook about this crisis referred to Edward's lack of desire to take the issue to the public via the media. He put it rather simply, "our cock won't fight". I think that second comment also supports my view that Edward VIII just did not want to be King and Wallis was the way out.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 06-13-2011, 01:53 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,211
Without a doubt (at least in my mind) Edward didn't want the responsiblities associated with being King but wanted the glory and the riches.

There are some who believed that that Edward would have eloped with Wallis before George V's death but that doesn't take into consideration that she was still married to Ernest Simpson at the time.

Also, did anyone else read there was some concern that Edward was asking questions about ownership of Fort Belvedere before the Abdication? Some thought he was going to try to sign it over to Wallis. I can't remember where I read that...maybe the Reluctant King.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 06-13-2011, 03:32 PM
Aliza's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Without a doubt (at least in my mind) Edward didn't want the responsiblities associated with being King but wanted the glory and the riches.

There are some who believed that that Edward would have eloped with Wallis before George V's death but that doesn't take into consideration that she was still married to Ernest Simpson at the time.

Also, did anyone else read there was some concern that Edward was asking questions about ownership of Fort Belvedere before the Abdication? Some thought he was going to try to sign it over to Wallis. I can't remember where I read that...maybe the Reluctant King.
You may be right at that! I do remember though, that in the First World War, David constantly complained that he was not allowed to go near the front and always used the plea, "but I have four brothers", to my mind another indication of lack of desire to fulfil his assumed destiny. I do completely agree that he wanted the riches and the glory and also with one of your earlier posts - that he had an abysmal knowledge of how Constitutional Monarchies function. I believe his father never trusted him enough to share state papers and his education was based in the navy and not too likely to have focused on the necessary subjects in his case. (On a side note: It fascinates me how Victoria kept the State Papers locked away from the future Edward VII, then Edward VII made sure the future George V did have access to them but then George V repeated his grandmother Victoria's mistake! Although in the case of George V and his heir it might have been a matter of good judgement on the King's part.)

I have read that Prince Edward, after the Abdication, asked for and received assurances from George VI about "The Fort", but the agreement was held by King George to be null and void after he discovered how much David had lied to him concerning his personal assets. I think I've read every book in English concerning Edward VIII, the Duchess of Windsor, and George VI and Queen Elizabeth and I do not recall ever hearing of David trying to secure ownership of the Fort before the Abdication. IMO, he would have known too well that it belonged directly to the Sovereign (he had asked George V for permission to use it) and therefore, if he abdicated - it would automatically go along with the rest of the Crown holdings to his brother. Pre-Abdication, wouldn't he have had to sell it from himself as King to himself as a "private person (or maybe sell it to Wallis)? I also would be interested if anyone else knows more about this point.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 06-13-2011, 03:49 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,211
According to the Reluctant King, page 149:

In September of 1936, King George V had a conversation with Eric Savill who was in charge of Windsor Park and the adjacent Crown Lands. Savill told him that he had recently been approached by the Prince of Wales, who wished to acquire Fort Bevedere form the Crown as his personal property, giving as his reason the somewhat implausible one that according to Wigram's report of the conversation, "the day may come when a republic will be declared in this country and he will have nowhere to live unless Belvedere is his own private property."

Apparently the King saw thru this ruse, as both Sandringham and Balmoral would pass to him on his father's death as private property. Moreover, the King pointed out, if a republic were to be declared, then the Prince would certainly not be able to live in England and his private property confiscated. Also since Belvedere was not private family property but part of the Crown Lands, it could not be sold without the sanction of Parliament and the passing of a Bill to allow Crown Lands to see it. Apparently Edward was told on his death, the property would be would have to pass to his successor and could not be bequeathed to any private individual.

This was intending to warn the Prince off the plan, since the King clearly suspected that his son intended to give or leave the Fort to Wallis.

------------

In regards to the Fort, I think George VI did make concessions regarding the financial settlement with Edward in good faith. But since it appeared that Edward didn't do the same, he definitely (and rightfully so) held off letting Edward and Wallis use the Fort as a base. But since it was/is (I think it was finally sold) a Crown Property it was his to do as he wished.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 06-13-2011, 11:19 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
My dear Aliza,

You misunderstood my post, or perhaps I was not as clear as I had hoped. I agree that Edward was not playing a game with the media. I was responding to another post which, to me, seemed to imply that the press keeping quiet about the romance was not to Edward's advantage. I actually think if the British press had been free to publicize Edward's romance with a twice married woman from the start, the outcome would have been the same but it may have occurred even earlier. Or it might have spooked Wallis so she would have abandoned Edward before things got more involved. That might have left him on the throne, which would have been a shame in light of his character and because we now know how superb George VI was at leading his subjects through World War II.

The right thing was done here. As my sainted grandmother used to say, "It is written in the stars."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 06-13-2011, 11:58 PM
Aliza's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
According to the Reluctant King, page 149:

In September of 1936, King George V had a conversation with Eric Savill who was in charge of Windsor Park and the adjacent Crown Lands. Savill told him that he had recently been approached by the Prince of Wales, who wished to acquire Fort Bevedere form the Crown as his personal property, giving as his reason the somewhat implausible one that according to Wigram's report of the conversation, "the day may come when a republic will be declared in this country and he will have nowhere to live unless Belvedere is his own private property."

Apparently the King saw thru this ruse, as both Sandringham and Balmoral would pass to him on his father's death as private property. Moreover, the King pointed out, if a republic were to be declared, then the Prince would certainly not be able to live in England and his private property confiscated. Also since Belvedere was not private family property but part of the Crown Lands, it could not be sold without the sanction of Parliament and the passing of a Bill to allow Crown Lands to see it. Apparently Edward was told on his death, the property would be would have to pass to his successor and could not be bequeathed to any private individual.

This was intending to warn the Prince off the plan, since the King clearly suspected that his son intended to give or leave the Fort to Wallis.

------------

In regards to the Fort, I think George VI did make concessions regarding the financial settlement with Edward in good faith. But since it appeared that Edward didn't do the same, he definitely (and rightfully so) held off letting Edward and Wallis use the Fort as a base. But since it was/is (I think it was finally sold) a Crown Property it was his to do as he wished.
Many thanks, Zonk, for that info. I have read "The Reluctant King" and apparently, I need to do so again, as I seem to have forgotten the particulars involved regarding the attempts by EVIII to keep "The Fort".

I completely agree with you that George VI had every right and indeed made the correct choice regarding The Duke of Windsor returning to Fort Belvedere. It would have been a focal point for anyone loyal to the "old regime" and was certainly situated uncomfortably close to Windsor Castle. Bottom line though - David lied considerably about his assets and deserved no consideration from George VI after he was found out.

I believe Fort Belvedere sat empty for some few years, was used as offices during the ensuing war, and then some Harewood cousins of HM took up residence for a period of time. The Emir of Dubai lived there in the mid-seventies and after he decamped, Galen and Hilary Weston moved in. From my searching on the net, it appears to remain Crown Property, but I, like you, have read several times that it was sold outright a few years ago. If anyone can clarify this, it would be much appreciated.

I remember in the "crisis years" of the early and mid 1990's, how a departing member of the BRF (who shall go unnamed as there is no relation with the topic of this thread, but you'll recognise the quote) was called by a former courtier of HM to be "vulgar, vulgar, vulgar"; the Duke of Windsor's life, he can also be summed up by one word, IMO - he was selfish, selfish, selfish - and that is that.

I deplore efforts made, particularly on the western side of the Atlantic, to romanticise the Abdication Crisis. Yes, it turned out for the best by a long way, but the successes of George VI and his Queen Consort do not wipe away the fact that Edward walked away from his duties - something even Queen Victoria did not do after Prince Albert's death, although she certainly withdrew from showing herself publicly for many years. There is nothing romantic about a King running away from all of his duties in order to fulfil a personal desire. Leaving aside my opinion that Wallis was just his excuse, the irony is that even she wanted to keep their relationship private and non-legal. So he did not even take HER wishes into account as a man truly in love would have been careful so to do.

Selfish... Coming from George V and Queen Mary, one wonders just "where" Edward "came from". I have read that the only time Diana, Princess of Wales saw HM The Queen cry was at the interment of the Duchess of Windsor. Considering this was fifty years after the Abdication, it really demonstrates how the BRF looked upon Edward's actions and I can only imagine HM was utterly relieved that it was finally all over. One wonders if thoughts of how different her own life would have been if Edward had done his duty were also going through her mind. WE are grateful to have Elizabeth as Queen Regnant all these years; sometimes one forgets her personal desire was to be a "lady living in the country, with lots of horses and dogs". Fortunately for us, HM did have the sense of duty lacking in her uncle and we have been truly blessed by HM's reign as well as that of HM's parents.

Had Edward succeeded to marry Wallis morganatically and been crowned King, his well-known (though not atypical of many circles in England in the thirties) sympathy for the nazis would have not allowed the BRF to be the focal point for Country and Empire to rally round as they were able to do with George VI and Queen Elizabeth. If Edward had caused a Constitutional crisis by forcing the issue and rejecting the advice of his PM, thereby prompting the resignation of the Cabinet, there would have been even greater harm done to the Monarchy. In either case, I truly believe if he had not bowed out when he did - we would no longer be speaking of a Monarch as Head of State in the UK; the UK would have long been a Republic by now and certainly the sometimes tenuous ties that bind the Commonwealth would have also broken apart long ago. It is an excellent topic to discuss when one wishes to demonstrate how one man's actions can change the world to a very large degree...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 06-14-2011, 12:13 AM
Aliza's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Posts: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos View Post
My dear Aliza,

You misunderstood my post, or perhaps I was not as clear as I had hoped. I agree that Edward was not playing a game with the media. I was responding to another post which, to me, seemed to imply that the press keeping quiet about the romance was not to Edward's advantage. I actually think if the British press had been free to publicize Edward's romance with a twice married woman from the start, the outcome would have been the same but it may have occurred even earlier. Or it might have spooked Wallis so she would have abandoned Edward before things got more involved. That might have left him on the throne, which would have been a shame in light of his character and because we now know how superb George VI was at leading his subjects through World War II.

The right thing was done here. As my sainted grandmother used to say, "It is written in the stars."
I am sorry if I misunderstood you and quite agree with almost all you have written above. (I particularly enjoyed the quote from your grandmother.) The Abdication was painful, but it gave birth to two of the best Monarchs (and their consorts) in history; George VI and Queen Elizabeth, and the current Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

Just one little point; if you read the letters between Edward and Wallis (and some between Wallis and her aunt) that were published in the mid-eighties, you can see how Mrs. Simpson tried to stop him from abdicating, that she did try to break off the relationship only to be told by Edward that he would "follow her, wherever she may go". She was trapped in a position and worried about it, but selfish Edward disregarded her feelings and her wish to remain his mistress behind the scenes, and forged ahead without her approval. In my opinion, he didn't even show Wallis real love. Did you read Tsaritsa's excellent comment on the previous page? She explains it much better than I ever could. As I commented to Zonk, Edward was the epitome of selfishness and as Zonk pointed out, Edward was willing to take the glory and the riches of being King, but was loathe to do the actual heavy work load that accompanies the position and completely unwilling to make any of the many sacrifices demanded of a Constitutional Monarch. (He couldn't even be bothered to hide his boredom at the presentation of debutantes, where all he had to do was sit in a chair for a few hours and look pleasant, for example.)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 06-14-2011, 03:23 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
Aliza, thankyou for your kind words. Your comment "that he couldn't even show Wallis real love" was very thought provoking. I concur that this was certainly not love as I understand it, but is my experience of it the same as yours? I believe each persons' experience to be based around what they have received-try to picture QM cuddling and cooing lovinglyover her babies!!!Even their nurse turned out to be sadistic!!! The saying "What's not been showed can't be bestowed" holds very true and when a child isn't shown love the unspoken message it receives is that it is unworthy of love and those insecurities stemming from that knowledge can last a lifetime. I don't believe David ever needed Wallis to love him-because he didn't know what being loved felt like?-he needed her to be there for him to worship-as he had worshipped QM?-and this may be a part of why he was so desperate over money. He could have been afraid that if the money ran out-impossible, I know, but I talking about David's insecurities-and he could no longer furnish Wallis with the things he saw as being necessary to her status(minus an HRH) that she would leave him. I can't imagine that there weren't moments when she wished she'd never met him!!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 06-14-2011, 06:43 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,057
Sorry,but for me the idea that "Edward couldn't have shown to Wallis real love" and that "she regretted that ever met him" sounds completely absurd.Edward was neither an angel nor a perfect man,different people show love and tenderness in different ways,but only a man who really loved his woman could have renounced to the throne,as Queen Mary said "He left all this for a woman of nothing".
Everybody could have regrets at a particular moment of married life and that's normal.But Wallis had no reasons to have regretted it,she was loved by her husband,she had been given the title of Duchess of Windsor,she had nothing to lose in her way(the previous husbands did not matter for her,her relation with her relatives was no perfect at all,she had no children to lose through divorce).She was totally free to set up with her man,who was the ex-king of Britain.The public opinion against her would have mattered if she had lived in Britain where there was a wave of hatred against her.It's a pity that the royal family never invited her to any manifestations after the Duke's death.I read that Prince Charles felt sorry for her and even wanted to invite her but he never decided to go against the reaction of his beloved grandmother,who did not love at all Wallis.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 06-14-2011, 07:02 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,211
To me Edward's asking and seeking ownership of the Fort and not knowing what was required for him to obtain the property shows ONCE AGAIN that he had no understanding of the monarchy...the very thing he was a part of and was to become the head of. No one would expect him to know everything but could you have a basic understanding? I bet if one polled the DoY he would have known that the Fort couldn't have just been given or sold to Edward.

Well the BRF pretty much kept its distance from the Windsors after the Abdication. Especially after the war. The DoW came over a couple of times, the Gloucesters saw them in Europe, but when he was at BP the Queen was not. Queen Mary didn't see him until after WWII (although they did exchange letters). The ice didn't break until Edward had his eye surgery and the Queen visited him in Paris with the DoE and Charles. After that pretty much everyone visited him (the Kents, the Gloucesters, Margaret, Anne, etc.) I believe the Queen Mother retained her affection for Edward up to a point, she just she never forgot that his desire to be with Wallis caused her husband to carry the burden of being King.

In regards to Wallis, yes Edward made the decision when HE went to HER husband to talk about divorce. Without her knowledge and approval. That's pretty arrogant IMO. She would have been content to just remain the mistress behind the throne. I read she once said, that its hard to live out the Romance of the Century. So while they were generally happy...at some point like most married couples they had their issues (see the 1950's, the Donahue affair, etc.)

In regards to the BRF inviting Wallis, I think they made overtures but her viewpoint was it should have been made before the Duke died. Too little too late. Again, I see her point but again she (as did the Duke) missed the general point of how the BRF felt as a result of the Abdication. Charles didn't have much of a deep relationship with Wallis and it had nothing to do with the Queen Mother he just wasn't around much. He did meet her a few times but he spent more time with the Duke. Wallis really had more of relationship with Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.

Did Wallis do England a favor? Without a doubt IMO. I think in hindsight they all recognized it but sometimes you have to be years away from the situation in order to have a better understanding of the positives and negatives.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 06-14-2011, 07:30 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
I have no real knowledge of Edward VIII. but seem to recall that his sympathies for faschism were known before he ascended to the throne. Surely his other faults (like not having enough knowledge of his future role and his lack of willingness to do his duty first)were known to the courtiers and the main politicians of this time as well. With Hitler about to build "Great Germany" at that time, Mussolini and Franco ireigning n Italy and Spain: all that posed political problems that having Edward as king would only magnify.

So I always got the impression that for the government and the political establishment Wallis was a lucky escape and thus they influenced the elites of society to see it likewise, making it impossible for Edward to marry Wallis. I believe Edward felt the pressure, that not too many influential people were happy with him as king due to his lack of bourgeoise virtues and because of his political ideas. And it was a time were thrones collapsed which had survived WWI (or at least had had some chances of restitution before the dictatorships took over in Europe).

So there were many important reasons to get rid of Edward as he was not willing to comply to his new job and Wallis in a way was just a pawn caught up in the middle to a poltical intrigue. In the end it was very convenient for all people involved to build up the myth of the "Romance of the Century" when in fact it had some aspects of another "Glorious revolution". Thank God Edward and Wallis had no children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 06-14-2011, 07:45 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I have no real knowledge of Edward VIII. but seem to recall that his sympathies for faschism were known before he ascended to the throne. Surely his other faults (like not having enough knowledge of his future role and his lack of willingness to do his duty first)were known to the courtiers and the main politicians of this time as well. With Hitler about to build "Great Germany" at that time, Mussolini and Franco ireigning n Italy and Spain: all that posed political problems that having Edward as king would only magnify.

So I always got the impression that for the government and the political establishment Wallis was a lucky escape and thus they influenced the elites of society to see it likewise, making it impossible for Edward to marry Wallis. I believe Edward felt the pressure, that not too many influential people were happy with him as king due to his lack of bourgeoise virtues and because of his political ideas. And it was a time were thrones collapsed which had survived WWI (or at least had had some chances of restitution before the dictatorships took over in Europe).

So there were many important reasons to get rid of Edward as he was not willing to comply to his new job and Wallis in a way was just a pawn caught up in the middle to a poltical intrigue. In the end it was very convenient for all people involved to build up the myth of the "Romance of the Century" when in fact it had some aspects of another "Glorious revolution". Thank God Edward and Wallis had no children.
Without a doubt his deficiencies were known to the courtiers. Alan Lascelles was at first his private secretary, resigned and went to work for George V, and than was dismayed when the King died and he still ended up working for Edward as the new King! From the Battle Royal (pg102) and I have read this in other books:

Captain Lascelles had asked for an interview with the Prime Minister, and admitted that at times when the Heir Apparent was riding in a point-to0point, he "couldn't help when thinking that the best thing that could happen to him, and to the country, would be for him to break his neck."
"God forgive me," Baldwin replied, "I have often thought of the same thing."

That's basically Treason and very telling.

I don't know so much that the elites were pressured to feel the same about Wallis...there were two camps...those that supported Wallis who thought she was great fun and enjoyed her company as the mistress, as long as she knew her place they were okay. They were dismayed to some extent how everything went down. And than there were those who didn't appreciate that she didn't know her place and wasn't discreet (flashing the jewels around London and such).

Despite this, I think the establishment would have been okay for Wallis to remain as a mistress in the background. It definitely played out like a Romance of the Century for everyone except the participants.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 06-14-2011, 02:08 PM
Russophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Portland, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
I have no real knowledge of Edward VIII. but seem to recall that his sympathies for faschism were known before he ascended to the throne. Surely his other faults (like not having enough knowledge of his future role and his lack of willingness to do his duty first)were known to the courtiers and the main politicians of this time as well. With Hitler about to build "Great Germany" at that time, Mussolini and Franco ireigning n Italy and Spain: all that posed political problems that having Edward as king would only magnify.
I rather think it was because he was so limited in his scope of things, David, I mean. Sure, it looks awfully good to see everybody industrious and happy in Germany, and don't forget quite a few English girls, most notably, the Notorious Mitfords admired Hitler for picking the country up and out of the gutter. The English used to send quite a few daughters to France and Germany for finishing school. However, the ones who were more astute realized there were things wrong in Germany under that veneer of superiority, Unity Mitford, however found nothing wrong. I dont believe David did either. But that is MHO.
__________________
"Not MGM, not the press, not anyone can tell me what to do."--Ava Gardner
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 06-14-2011, 02:12 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,211
Russo you are so correct.

Yes, anti-Semitism was the norm in the British upper classes so some people thought like David. Shame is, even after the war was over and information about the Holocaust became known...he still was under the impression that war could have been avoided...but at what cost?

I am thinking some of these posts need to be moved to the general Windsor thread. we are moving past the Abdication.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 06-14-2011, 06:04 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliza View Post
I am sorry if I misunderstood you and quite agree with almost all you have written above. (I particularly enjoyed the quote from your grandmother.) The Abdication was painful, but it gave birth to two of the best Monarchs (and their consorts) in history; George VI and Queen Elizabeth, and the current Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

Just one little point; if you read the letters between Edward and Wallis (and some between Wallis and her aunt) that were published in the mid-eighties, you can see how Mrs. Simpson tried to stop him from abdicating, that she did try to break off the relationship only to be told by Edward that he would "follow her, wherever she may go". She was trapped in a position and worried about it, but selfish Edward disregarded her feelings and her wish to remain his mistress behind the scenes, and forged ahead without her approval. In my opinion, he didn't even show Wallis real love. Did you read Tsaritsa's excellent comment on the previous page? She explains it much better than I ever could. As I commented to Zonk, Edward was the epitome of selfishness and as Zonk pointed out, Edward was willing to take the glory and the riches of being King, but was loathe to do the actual heavy work load that accompanies the position and completely unwilling to make any of the many sacrifices demanded of a Constitutional Monarch. (He couldn't even be bothered to hide his boredom at the presentation of debutantes, where all he had to do was sit in a chair for a few hours and look pleasant, for example.)


My dear Aliza,

No need to apologize. This forum is open to all discussions and I enjoy the give and take between the posters. My original post was not very clear and I just wanted to clear up any misunderstanding.

I also agree with your other points. I think in earlier posts you will read some discussions about Edward's pathological clinging to Wallis. I believe in the Ziegler biography Edward is quoted as threatening to kill himself if Wallis would not see him or because she wanted him to set her aside. Quite pathetic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 06-14-2011, 06:16 PM
Bundtrock's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Irving, United States
Posts: 46
I would like to ask a question please.

If King Edward VIII, had simply abdicated and married Mrs. Simpson, what would have legally prevented him from remaining in the United Kingdom, if he so chose to do so?

I understand the Royal Family would have cut him off financially, but didn't he have his own financial resources at his disposal.

He was a native born citizen of the UK, right?
__________________
Camilla Bundtrock
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 06-14-2011, 06:32 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
I rather think it was because he was so limited in his scope of things, David, I mean. Sure, it looks awfully good to see everybody industrious and happy in Germany, and don't forget quite a few English girls, most notably, the Notorious Mitfords admired Hitler for picking the country up and out of the gutter. The English used to send quite a few daughters to France and Germany for finishing school. However, the ones who were more astute realized there were things wrong in Germany under that veneer of superiority, Unity Mitford, however found nothing wrong. I dont believe David did either. But that is MHO.
Before dear Zonk removes this to another thread, I want to second this opinion. Edward and many of his social caste admired German efficiency while conveniently ignoring, or choosing not to look, at the festering beneath the surface of the Third Reich.

As for the Mitfords, it was Diana and Unity who loved Fascism. But Diana was at least a realist about it and said many years later that Unity condemned herself "out of her own mouth" by the things she said in defense of Hitler. The Mitfords were an amazing family.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 06-14-2011, 06:38 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bundtrock View Post
I would like to ask a question please.

If King Edward VIII, had simply abdicated and married Mrs. Simpson, what would have legally prevented him from remaining in the United Kingdom, if he so chose to do so?

I understand the Royal Family would have cut him off financially, but didn't he have his own financial resources at his disposal.

He was a native born citizen of the UK, right?
I don't think he could be legally estopped from living in England. But the reality of the situation, in which his wife was denied any royal status, and the royal family having nothing to do with either of them, and the public opinion seeming to be against her, all probably persuaded the Windsors to live outside the country.
__________________

__________________
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 96 10-21-2014 07:23 PM
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




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:22 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]