The Abdication, 11 December 1936

[Iluvbertie]

The stutter for one thing.

[Vasillisos Markos]

Do you think Edward VIII was whistling "Dixie" when he went south of the Mason/Dixon line? Sorry, couldn't help myself

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Aliza

IMHO, I believe people resorted to creating these myths or believing them because they needed a reason they could understand as to why the beloved Prince of Wales of the 1920's had abdicated for a very plain looking American divorced woman. His action was extraordinary, therefore there needed to be an extraordinary reason for it to happen. It is similar to how many people believe there was some "conspiracy" or "something off" in the manner of death of Diana, Princess of Wales; it's just hard to accept that a lady of her stature could die in something as ordinary as a drunk driving crash...

Exactly. They obfusicate history. THey did that to Cleopatra, they did that to Anne Bolyn and they did it to Wallis.

[Aliza]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

That is why I said 'official' use with the Missouri Compromise as the term was an unofficial one before that.

The line of the Missouri Compromise and the Mason Dixon Line are two different lines.

Since this thread is about the Abdication and Wallis Windsor was under discussion, I chose to define the Mason Dixon line in a manner that Wallis herself would have been likely to describe it. As she was a post-Civil War child, and if she made that remark about "never being touched below her Mason Dixon Line" then obviously she also saw it as a line that expressed a major delineation between North and South, whether geographically or anatomically speaking.

Tsaritsa, while I am familiar with that alleged quote from the Duchess of Windsor, I don't remember to whom she supposedly made it. Since I don't have easy access to all of my library currently (I just moved houses) I would be most appreciative if you could refresh my memory about to whom she said that, when and where, of course, only if you can do so without hunting through books - I don't want to make any work for you!

[Tsaritsa]

Aliza, other than the latest bio from Vickers, I must have read everything written about her BUT I'm notoriously bad at remembering authors!!! However, before you give up in total despair of me, the "bible" I use for constant reference is the Zeigler bio Edward V111. I recall that she told Baba Metcalff on the wedding morning that she had been married twice but had not had sexual intercourse. The conversation regarding the Mason-Dixon line, if not a part of that conversation, was said to the Herman Rogers and now that memory has been triggered it makes sense, because I imagine them to have been closer to her than others. On the whole, I don't feel that she shared intimicies so maybe both comments were a veiled way of saying that she felt trapped. Hope this has helped.

[MARG]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

The stutter for one thing.

• When did a "stutter" become a "neurological problem"? and
• If that is one thing, what is another?

[XeniaCasaraghi]

George VI didn't have neurological problems. A stutter is not a neurological problem; it is a speech impediment. George had ailments all his life but one of them (his stomach problems) were not his fault; and his knock knees were "fixed".

[Lenora]

If a future monarch married today a twice divorced woman,people would praise him for being open-minded and brave despite social standards (the near case of Haakon of Norway when he married a single mother).Then the things were very different and the couple was in a way punished for their forbidden love.

[CarolynHarris]

Here's my review of Anne Sebba's biography of Wallis simpson

That Woman by Anne Sebba: Book Review of the latest biography of Wallis Simpson, Duchess of Windsor | Carolyn Harris: Royal Historian

[Constance59]

New here...but not to history of royalty. I've read all of the bios on Edward VIII, watched all the movies, just watched the miniseries "Edward and Mrs. Simpson" this weekend. It just seems to me that Edward was living completely in his own world, fostered by Wallis, if he actually believed he would be allowed to marry a divorced woman and remain king. Divorce was so frowned upon at the time, he knew well that his mother and father never recognized a divorced woman, even if she was the injured party. I believe he was taken in by Wallis, who had no real idea about the King's role, or lack thereof, in government of the UK, and she really believed as King, he could do what he wanted and make or break the rules. I think it came as a great shock to her when she finally learned otherwise. But goodness, the level of Edward's naivety is almost comical...of course he was egged on by Winston and a few others to encourage his dream, but still-he actually thought his family, including his mother would attend the wedding after he abdicated? What world was this man living in? His mother was so ashamed, she could barely hold her head up. I think he lived his whole life in a kind of dreamy bubble, and was almost always annoyed when he had to actually work. What a great relief for history, in my opinion, that he did not remain King a moment longer than he did. His brother was magnificent with regards to the needs of the country at war and God only know what would have happened if Edward had been in reign; if Wallis whispered in his ear good things about Hitler, he would have been spouting the same opinions in public, given half a chance. I never believed she was sincere about "bowing out" either, as she knew, and said, he would never give her up, so what harm to her in making the statement? But I don't think that the life she ended up having, depsite the luxuries, was at all what she had in mind.

[Tsaritsa]

Hello Constance59 and welcome. Read through the previous posts and you'll discover diverse feeling regarding Wallis. My own are that she hadn't a clue what she was getting into, other than it seemed like a good idea at the time. Sharp, she probably was, intellectual, she certainly wasn't and British politics and the "rules" of aristocracy and Monarchy were way beyond her. I believe she became jammed into a corner from which there was no exit so she either had to marry him or shoulder the full responsibility for the abdication and the subsequent fate of the rejected ex King. In her favour, she stayed the course, something a more intelligent woman might had had trouble doing. I imagine it to have been a life of stultifyibg boredom but at least there was enough money to ease the boredom with appropriate baubles.

[Constance59]

Thanks for welcome, and I agree, the life they ended up leading could not have been much fun, no matter how much money they had access to. The shock to both of them at not being allowed in England and never being accepted by the Royals must have been very great, and we all know how much the Duke resented his wife's lack of the Royal title designation...they had each other, but became a pair of wandering socialites. I am glad, at least, that they stayed together through it all. I hope in the end they both felt it had been worthwhile, and again, I feel it was for the best that Edward did not remain as King...

[Vasillisos Markos]

My dear Constance59,

Welcome to the Forums! I quite agree with your last observation -- Edward VIII would have made a dreadful wartime monarch and probably would have mucked up the job even in peacetime. I don't mean to sound harsh but I do believe he was unsuited for the demands of the job, namely that he owed a duty to the crown and to his people and this was a price he was unwilling to pay. There was probably some relief in abdicating, although he said that he did miss the pomp which went with the job.

[NGalitzine]

I am sure Wallis would have loved redecorating all the palaces as well as Balmoral & Sandringham, but other than that I think she would have been a lousy Queen Consort. Probably would have been sipping martinis while the east end was being bombed and thought the whole war a great bother because it interfered with getting new clothes from Paris.

[Iluvbertie]

Let's be realistic here - they would probably have left England - she definitely would have done so because they wouldn't have wanted to be put at risk.

The government did the right thing in forcing the abdication and were grateful that Wallis was a good excuse but I wonder how they would have done it without her - for get rid of him they most certainly would have done.

[Constance59]

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos

My dear Constance59,

Welcome to the Forums! I quite agree with your last observation -- Edward VIII would have made a dreadful wartime monarch and probably would have mucked up the job even in peacetime. I don't mean to sound harsh but I do believe he was unsuited for the demands of the job, namely that he owed a duty to the crown and to his people and this was a price he was unwilling to pay. There was probably some relief in abdicating, although he said that he did miss the pomp which went with the job.

Thank you for the welcome...

[dbarn67]

Interesting...

The madness of King Edward VIII: Shocking letters hidden for 76 years reveal Archbishop accused Monarch of insanity, alcoholism and persecution mania - and forced him into abdication crisis | Mail Online

[Royal Smurfness]

Originally Posted by isayoldboy

I think Prince George's bisexuality is fairly well established, as is his drug habit.

Which George is meant here, the grandfather of Queen Elizabeth II.?

I saw a documentary on tv about Edward VIII. supporting the Nazis, I think the was the true reason he had to go.

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by Royal Smurfness

Which George is meant here, the grandfather of Queen Elizabeth II.?

I saw a documentary on tv about Edward VIII. supporting the Nazis, I think the was the true reason he had to go.

Prince George, Duke of Kent the brother of Edward VIII.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Royal Smurfness

Which George is meant here, the grandfather of Queen Elizabeth II.?

I saw a documentary on tv about Edward VIII. supporting the Nazis, I think the was the true reason he had to go.

In 1936, when he abdicated, there were many people in Britain who supported the Nazis - many prominant people. At that time he was highly respected around the world, because the worst excesses of the regime were still in the years ahead. Churchill was speaking out against Hitler but the majority of people didn't do so - in fact the government wasn't all that concerned at that time.

Edward VIII pro-Nazi tendencies weren't a real factor in 1936 - had the abdication happened in say 1938 or 1939 it would have been but not in 1936 when the Nazis were only just getting going on their military build-up.