Duke and Duchess of Windsor (1894-1972) and (1895-1986) - Page 12

CasiraghiTrio · #**221** 09-18-2007, 10:20 AM

There are rational objections to some royal matches. For instance, an overtly politically controversial match like a prince/princess and a Nazi "Skinhead" could be considered a rational objection.

I think, however, that the objections to Wallis and Camilla have been irrationally based on stereotypes or prejudice.

Duchess · #**222** 09-18-2007, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

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.

we refering to their feelings for one another. but you're right, things have changed a lot since the windsors.

branchg · #**223** 09-18-2007, 09:23 PM

I don't know if I can agree there are not "rational" objections to either Wallis or Camilla as royal consorts.

Wallis was not an honourable woman, given what we know now about her carrying on with another man while still married and seeing Edward at the same time. She certainly was greedy and self-indulgent with no real sense of the sacrifices that come with being a member of the royal family.

Camilla was the mistress of The Prince of Wales for years, including while she was married to Andrew Parker-Bowles. While that doesn't excuse Diana's own comforts outside her marriage, it certainly raises questions of character that are uncomfortable for the monarchy and its future Sovereign.

In my opinion, the British monarchy has to demonstrate mystique and a sense of duty to survive. Once everyone starts marrying the risque girl down the street and getting divorces left and right, it diminishes their standing and makes it a common affair.

BeatrixFan · #**224** 09-19-2007, 06:04 AM

The greatest monarchs have had strange bedfellows. Look at Henry VIII....

susan alicia · #**225** 09-19-2007, 07:20 AM

quite normal for the age actually, some marriages where arranged and others were based on lust.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

The greatest monarchs have had strange bedfellows. Look at Henry VIII....

Duchess · #**226** 09-19-2007, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

Wallis was not an honourable woman, given what we know now about her carrying on with another man while still married and seeing Edward at the same time. She certainly was greedy and self-indulgent with no real sense of the sacrifices that come with being a member of the royal family.

i can't see a difference....both women carried on extra marital affairs.

CasiraghiTrio · #**227** 09-19-2007, 03:04 PM

As to extra-marital affairs......... these were engaged in by Camilla, Wallis, Diana, Prince Charles, King Edward VII, King George IV, his wife Princess Caroline too I think, Charles II, James II, probably William III as well, needless to mention Henry VIII.... the list goes on and on. But obviously the kings of centuries past aren't held to the same standards as the royal wives of XX and XXI. Do you see my point about hypocritical, irrational objections?

COUNTESS · #**228** 09-19-2007, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

As to extra-marital affairs......... these were engaged in by Camilla, Wallis, Diana, Prince Charles, King Edward VII, King George IV, his wife Princess Caroline too I think, Charles II, James II, probably William III as well, needless to mention Henry VIII.... the list goes on and on. But obviously the kings of centuries past aren't held to the same standards as the royal wives of XX and XXI. Do you see my point about hypocritical, irrational objections?

Sorry, Caroline was miserable and married to a cad, as Diana, what they did wasn't correct, but their husbands were not worth spit. Wallis was a trollop and David loved her to all ends. Charles was married to Catherine of Braganza who did not produce any children and just wasn't his type, also not an excuse. Charles was the "Father of his Country", literally with many illigitimate children. James was not much better. At least his wasn't divorced, not that I care, from his first wife, Anne Hyde, she died then he married Mary of Modena. As for the present Duchess of Cornwall, she had no problem having affairs before and after and during her marriage. I don't care, as she represents nothing to me. They were all held, at their times, even Henry VIII, as problems. Their just wasn't the media coverage as today. People also often could not read in those times, so how could they know.

CasiraghiTrio · #**229** 09-19-2007, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Sorry, Caroline was miserable and married to a cad, as Diana, what they did wasn't correct, but their husbands were not worth spit. Wallis was a trollop and David loved her to all ends. Charles was married to Catherine of Braganza who did not produce any children and just wasn't his type, also not an excuse. Charles was the "Father of his Country", literally with many illigitimate children. James was not much better. At least his wasn't divorced, not that I care, from his first wife, Anne Hyde, she died then he married Mary of Modena. As for the present Duchess of Cornwall, she had no problem having affairs before and after and during her marriage. I don't care, as she represents nothing to me. They were all held, at their times, even Henry VIII, as problems. Their just wasn't the media coverage as today. People also often could not read in those times, so how could they know.

Right! I was just pointing out what you are also implying here, that people have affairs, as they have done since the earliest times of humankind, for many reasons and it's hypocritical to judge them to be "bad" or "unworthy" or something because of these things. Prince Charles, just to use one example, is much more than accountable for his extra-marital affair; he is simply much more in the sense of being an incredible person, brilliant and progressive, and imo worthy of being a king! Just like Diana, she was more than just her affairs and her problems, still worthy of admiration imo. Having affairs simply does not make anyone good or bad. It's too simplistic. People, that is everyone in the world, deserves to have more credit for themselves, or at least the benefit of the doubt (excepting abusive, cruel, sadistic kind of people, naturally).

COUNTESS · #**230** 09-19-2007, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CasiraghiTrio

Right! I was just pointing out what you are also implying here, that people have affairs, as they have done since the earliest times of humankind, for many reasons and it's hypocritical to judge them to be "bad" or "unworthy" or something because of these things. Prince Charles, just to use one example, is much more than accountable for his extra-marital affair; he is simply much more in the sense of being an incredible person, brilliant and progressive, and imo worthy of being a king! Just like Diana, she was more than just her affairs and her problems, still worthy of admiration imo. Having affairs simply does not make anyone good or bad. It's too simplistic. People, that is everyone in the world, deserves to have more credit for themselves, or at least the benefit of the doubt (excepting abusive, cruel, sadistic kind of people, naturally).

Oh, quite right. I, personally, find that people who can betray a spouse can betray anything. Diana's getting back was no better. In fact, it was sadder. It basically said she knew better. I don't find Charles incredible in anyway, just a guy who was born in the right bed and he should be king, he hasn't done anything that many past kings have done. Why anyone would question his right to be king seems silly to me.

lilibet80 · #**231** 09-20-2007, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I think that claim has been discussed here before and generally considered to be untrue.

There was an actor in England who was reputed to be the Duke of Windsor's son, his name was Timothy Ward Seely. I do not know that the DOW had any children and I very much doubt that either Wallis or David had a child. But who can really say. I do know that the Duchess had a hysterectomy after she was married and she had had no children with either of her other two husbands or with her several lovers. When asked why they had no children she would blithely answer "because David is not 'heir conditioned."

Jeniann · #**232** 02-08-2008, 04:05 PM

Has anyone read The Last of the Duchess by Caroline Blackwood? I read it recently and it's a really good book, but depressing. It's about the last few years of Wallis Simpson's life and it's very sad how her lawyer controlled her. Does anyone know how true it is?

Russophile · #**233** 02-08-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeniann

Has anyone read The Last of the Duchess by Caroline Blackwood? I read it recently and it's a really good book, but depressing. It's about the last few years of Wallis Simpson's life and it's very sad how her lawyer controlled her. Does anyone know how true it is?

I've heard that's true. Also, you might want to check out Greg King's The Duchess of Windsor: The uncommon life of Wallis Simpson.

BeatrixFan · #**234** 02-08-2008, 08:08 PM

If anyone wants to know a truly filthy but very true fact about the Windsor's sex life I'll be happy to divulge over the PM feature. It's a little too obscene for the forums but it does explain an awful lot about their relationship.

Russophile · #**235** 02-08-2008, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

If anyone wants to know a truly filthy but very true fact about the Windsor's sex life I'll be happy to divulge over the PM feature. It's a little too obscene for the forums but it does explain an awful lot about their relationship.

You'd better Dish Sweetie!! You know where to find me!!

Madame Royale · #**236** 02-08-2008, 08:57 PM

Sam, there's a line...you've crossed it.lol.

**Elspeth** · #**237** 02-08-2008, 11:07 PM

PM me with it, Sam, and we'll see if it can be made un-obscene enough to post in the thread. If it can't, I'm deleting that post of yours.

ETA: The story seems to be one that's made its way into at least a couple of biographies of the Duke and Duchess. From Sam's PM to me: "Well, the dear Duke suffered from phimosis but also had an extremely small member. The Duchess of Windsor had learned certain techniques in which to accommodate the Duke and enable him to reach orgasm."

Propaganda against the Duchess has claimed that she learned said techniques in a Chinese brothel. I hope he thought it was worth giving up the crown for.