The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #181  
Old 09-10-2007, 09:41 AM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
Returning to Britain was never an option, war or no war. In the event they were given the option to redeem themselves.... out of harms way, in the Bahama's.
I disagree. Most of the public were supportive of the Duke and I believe would have been happy to let them reside in England as long as they lived as peers rather than Royals. The Duke must have had the right to sit in the Lords but they could have made special provision to deny him that. What harm could it do to have the Windsors living a private life on a private estate? I think if they'd have gone down that route then the Windsors would have had a much nicer life. And then, when the war came along, they could have done their bit and redeemed their reputation a little - I'm sure it could have been done and it was a viable option but one that was never looked into. If they were good enough to act as British diplomats, they were good enough to reside on British soil.

Quote:
In those dark days the King and Queen had to be the rallying point of a nation. Staunchly backing the government and the Prime Minister. A pro-Nazi ex King could have divided the nation. It could even have lost Britain the war. (A house divided against itself cannot stand! Not exactly the "Queen Mother effect!").
I don't believe David could ever have been King but we had plenty of pro-Nazis in Britain, Sir Oswald Mosely and his wife Diana to name but two. I fail to see why in a democratic country, we can't have private citizens who hold extreme right views. If the majority want to follow those views then they will but that didn't happen and I can't see why the Duke and Duchess of Windsor in their private status couldn't have returned to England and live a private existance. Personally I think any political affiliation would have been a mistake but if they did, they'd be doing so as private citizens and I don't see that as a problem or divisive to the nation unless you're suggesting there was possible mandate for a Nazi majority in Britain. But politics aside, and if they had remained totally apolitical, I don't see why they couldn't have visited the bombed out East End just as the Queen Mother did (as Queen) - after all, the Duke was popular there, more popular than the Queen Mother when she first visited. And if that had have happened, I'm sure that it would have been very different after the war with the Windsors held in a very different regard.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #182  
Old 09-15-2007, 12:08 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
David was a good person. He made some questionable or downright idiotic judgements (or possibly didn't use any judgement at all) at many times of his life, but imho they were all honest mistakes on his part. I don't believe he ever meant harm, though I won't delude myself into thinking he was an angel either. He was just a person.
The fact that he Abdicated makes me respect him. It required tremendous courage, especially for a proud man who was raised & taught to be borderline superman, for him to admit his inability to carry out the requirements kingship. It's sad, of course, because "Bertie" didn't want the position anymore than "David" did. But Bertie accepted it, and he made do. They both made a choice. David said no. Bertie said yes. Neither choice was wrong because both choices were personal.
__________________

__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #183  
Old 09-15-2007, 12:35 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 39
"Bertie" accepting the throne

David was absolutely obsessed with having Wallis as his wife. Nothing, not even his country and family came before Wallis. Bertie loved Elizabeth as much as David loved Wallis. Had Bertie been in the same position as David, although it might have ruined his life and broken his heart he would have given her up and remained on the throne. An abdication would probably never have occurred to him. He had character and loyalty.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #184  
Old 09-15-2007, 01:27 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
The Duke abdicated the throne to marry a twice-divorced woman who was rejected by the Government and the Dominions as suitable to become Queen Consort or a member of the royal family. He paid the price for his decision.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #185  
Old 09-15-2007, 04:15 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
To me, it shows more character for David that he stepped down, rather than pretend, or settle for something that would make him miserable. How can someone be a good king if they are personally miserable? Bertie hated to take on the job, but at least he had the love of his life at his side. It made it so much easier for him to have Elizabeth with him. The Queen Mother was really the reason he was able to do it. David did the same thing which Bertie would have done, imho, because both men had honor. They would not try to have both worlds, but would make a choice.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #186  
Old 09-16-2007, 05:21 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
i think they both paid a huge price. david gave up the throne for her and i think she married him out of devotion, not love, knowing that she would have to remain at his side forever. i think their story was fascinating and i love reading about them. it almost reminds me of charles and camilla in that she is the love of his life but he's not the love hers but they'll be together forever.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #187  
Old 09-17-2007, 08:55 AM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
I know what you mean, Duchess. There are more parallels between Charles and his uncle besides Camilla, all of which are incredibly fascinating. Both had strict navy-obsessed fathers. Both had strict schooling programs. Although of course Charles's formal education began much earlier and was more demanding from its start, David's education at Osbourne was very rough, and he went on to serve in the First World War. Then they were both so popular with the public, so quickly.
There were differences in their personality, but I think the similarities were strong enough that when they finally met they bonded quickly. I'm always so glad that Mountbatten pushed Charles to meet David.

I love this picture of young David. It was taken by Walter Pannell in 1911 and belongs to the V&A Museum.
Cadet Prince Edward
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #188  
Old 09-17-2007, 02:47 PM
Duchess's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: xx, Canada
Posts: 1,648
nice pic CT. they say that history repeats itself and i think the charles/camilla and the david/wallis and the david/charles situations are pretty close to that.
__________________
Duchess
Reply With Quote
  #189  
Old 09-17-2007, 02:53 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
I don't think Charles and Camilla's situation is anything like the Duke and Duchess of Windsor's situation. The Church, the Government and the majority of the establishment decided that Edward VIII was too much of a liability and Wallis was a convenient way of getting rid of him. Charles and Camilla have been allowed to marry and Camilla has been allowed to become a kind of Royal, even though IMO it's a second class one. If the two situations were at all similar I think we'd have seen Charles giving up his rights to the throne before a marriage could take place.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #190  
Old 09-17-2007, 02:54 PM
magnik's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,681
I wonder if there will be other Dukes of Windsor?
Could it be a title reserved for the ex-kings, PsoW or princes who married without permisssion for the marriage?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #191  
Old 09-17-2007, 02:57 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
I doubt it. There's not really any reason why any Royal shouldn't marry whoever they want to these days barring the Catholic thing and if that really was an issue within the immediate family then I think it'd be a case of ending the Catholic ban rather than pensioning them off with the Dukedom of Windsor.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #192  
Old 09-17-2007, 03:10 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Distrito federal, Mexico
Posts: 239
The rules in European Royalty have changed. The Duke of Windsor had to renounce The Throne of United Kindom, because He loved Wallis Simpson, and She was divorced.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #193  
Old 09-17-2007, 03:26 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Well, not really. That was a minor issue, the real reasons were far more complex. Wallis was American for one, ear-marked as a possible national socialist and generally considered not to be at all genteel enough to take the back footing as Queen Consort. David was considered to be too involved in politics, considered to have no regard whatsoever for the Church and to be incredibly modern. It was a serious combination that went against everything the Government and the Church wanted at the time and so they effectively organised a coup to oust him with Wallis as a very convenient cover story.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #194  
Old 09-17-2007, 04:07 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatrixFan View Post
If the two situations were at all similar I think we'd have seen Charles giving up his rights to the throne before a marriage could take place.
No. I don't agree. The people around Charles always discouraged him from repeating anything resembling the Abdication Crisis. This is I believe why he was so strongly pushed into marrying a young virginal aristocrat with no skeletons in her closet. Then as it became a matter of Charles insisting to marry Camilla, ways were made for them to do it without repeating the Abdication Crisis. Now the old restrictions are being lifted expressively for that purpose. I don't believe anyone in the royal family today or any of their flunkies wish to stomach another Abdication. At the very worst case scenario, Camilla will be his Princess Consort (best case, obviously, his Queen) but every effort will be made to ensure Charles becomes and stays King.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #195  
Old 09-17-2007, 04:17 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 39
mumps

"As regards to any issue of their relationship, I had read that David had mumps and was sterile. Anybody else have any info. on that?"

Both David and his brother Bertie caught mumps when they were away at Dartmouth. It is believed that David was sterile and there is some question about Bertie's inability to impregnate Elizabeth until she had artificial insemination. David apparently also had some chronic sexual problems.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #196  
Old 09-17-2007, 04:29 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
Quote:
At the very worst case scenario, Camilla will be his Princess Consort (best case, obviously, his Queen) but every effort will be made to ensure Charles becomes and stays King.
Really? I personally think we're seeing an Edward VIII kind of situation where the establishment doesn't want to see Charles become King. This time however, it's the Government who are supportive of him and rather the men in grey suits who are supposed to be working for Charles that are the biggest threat as I suppose they were with Edward VIII. They've made it clear that they consider Camilla a second class Royal and so we may not see an abdication but we're possibly seeing how Wallis might have been treated had a deal been possible marriage wise.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #197  
Old 09-17-2007, 05:16 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
As always, you make an excellent point in making a distinction between Gov't and Courtier support for Charles. I admit that the distinction here has not entered much into my thoughts about it. Regarding the Edward VIII case, I guess he had all sides working against him, except his family. I'm sure his family had reservations about Wallis, but by and large, the lot of them adored David, esp. Queen Mary, Princess Mary, and his successor. I imagine "Bertie" prayed everyday that his brother would somehow manage to remain on the Throne. I can't imagine his feelings of succeeding David as King being anything short of revulsion.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #198  
Old 09-17-2007, 05:24 PM
CasiraghiTrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Burbank, United States
Posts: 6,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilibet80 View Post
"As regards to any issue of their relationship, I had read that David had mumps and was sterile. Anybody else have any info. on that?"

Both David and his brother Bertie caught mumps when they were away at Dartmouth. It is believed that David was sterile and there is some question about Bertie's inability to impregnate Elizabeth until she had artificial insemination. David apparently also had some chronic sexual problems.
Is there some connection between mumps and sterility? Is it proven to be a cause of sterility?
I have also heard the sterile rumor, but it baffles me how anyone could know it. However, I know Wallis had a way of saying personal things carelessly.
__________________
Chewsteraghi on Tumblr. Schmichaelira on Twitter. Tumblr aka obsessivechewsteraghidisorder. Be warned: I'm weird.
Reply With Quote
  #199  
Old 09-17-2007, 05:46 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,514
Yes, mumps can cause sterility. Not always, but frequently. Things were different than today. Divorce was totally unacceptable in those circles and remained that way until the Queen Mother died. I don't think she would have danced joyfully at Charles second wedding, as she, obviously, did not feel divorced people should be on the throne. But Charles was divorced, and I am sure she wanted him to regin. I just think the remarriage would have brought back old memories. I really don't know how the present queen feels. You are right, they certainly didn't want another abdication crisis, although, this would not have been an abdication, but a renunciation. Camilla matters not at all. She is not the mother of any future king or queen. She does nothing for dynastic worries. I think, the courtiers, in many instances, see this as a morgantic marriage. I know the UK does not not have morgantic marriages in the law, but one can be treated that way, written or not.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #200  
Old 09-17-2007, 06:01 PM
BeatrixFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6,843
I would say that the attitude to divorce changed substantially long before the Queen Mother died and had to considering that the Royal Family saw more divorces than most common families. When you've got the Queen's sister and three of her children filing for divorce, you can't afford to remain stoicly moral. You say Camilla doesn't matter at all but as this thread shows by it's very existance, she does. Wallis Simpson mattered enough to cause an abdication and what Wallis was denied, Camilla has been given - on the surface. But what I believe has happened is that we're very much seeing how a Queen Wallis would have been treated. Always sidelined, treated quite badly by courtiers and generally seen as second class which has all the hallmarks of a morganatic marriage as you say - but morganatic marriage doesn't exist in Britain and thats why we had a Duke and Duchess of Windsor in the first place. David and Wallis, Charles and Camilla - all four of them seem to have been abused by the very people they were led to believe would support them.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
abdication, britain, duchess of windsor, duke of windsor, edward viii, king edward viii, wallis simpson


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
Duchess Of Windsor Jewellery micas Royal Jewels 200 12-12-2013 11:34 PM
The Duke and Duchess of Windsor Duchess Royal Library 106 07-15-2013 11:49 AM
The Duke of Windsor & Wallis Simpson - 3 June 1937 aussiechick12 Historical Royal Weddings 25 06-26-2013 04:27 PM
Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester and Miss Birgitte van Deurs: 8 July 1972 Scott Royal Weddings 13 07-11-2012 11:17 PM
The Duke And Duchess Of Gloucester: Oct 03-Jan 06 A.C.C. Current Events Archive 132 01-13-2006 10:37 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri infanta leonor infanta sofia 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 olympic games ottoman pom pregnancy president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:58 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]