Duke and Duchess of Windsor (1894-1972) and (1895-1986) - Page 14

Russophile · #**261** 05-07-2008, 08:23 PM

IB, all the books that I have read on Wallis state that she loved the limelight, the glitter, but when push came to shove, David made the choice for them. Is there any doubt she loved him? No, there isn't. I just don't think that they have the passionate love that Charles and Camilla obviously share for each other.
What could she do once he abdicated? She couldn't leave him. She HAD to marry him.
David really didn't want to rule, some books say, and other quote his father as saying that he'd ruin the Kingdom in 6 months.
I think Bertie was a much better choice for a monarch.

branchg · #**262** 05-07-2008, 08:55 PM

I think they were both self-indulgent and selfish, however, it is clear today The Duke wanted to abdicate right from the start, which went back quite a few years before George V died. He just didn't want to be King, which Wallis had no idea about until it was too late.

She most definitely did not want him to abdicate and was adamant that he sacrifice his personal desires in the name of his duty as King. But once the ball started rolling, it became impossible to stop.

Russophile · #**263** 05-07-2008, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg

She most definitely did not want him to abdicate and was adamant that he sacrifice his personal desires in the name of his duty as King. But once the ball started rolling, it became impossible to stop.

Exactly. And what could she do? "Sorry David, but I'm splitting as well. Sorry you gave your kingdom up for me and I'm not going to be around for the fall out."
Unfortunately, they both made each other's beds. . . .

**Elspeth** · #**264** 05-07-2008, 09:21 PM

I hope they managed to give each other a measure of happiness. Some of their biographers seemed to be determined to show that they had a thoroughly unhappy life - I hope that isn't the case. It doesn't seem to be, but I suppose you can never really tell.

Mermaid1962 · #**265** 05-07-2008, 10:28 PM

Yes, I agree. David had more glamour, but Bertie had more substance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile

I think Bertie was a much better choice for a monarch.

branchg · #**266** 05-08-2008, 09:36 AM

I don't think they had a wonderful life. The Duke suffered from bouts of depression and the constant humiliations from his family certainly weren't pleasant.

But I do think they were very happy together.

**Warren** · #**267** 05-08-2008, 11:40 AM

I remember the editorial in the main Sydney broadsheet when the Duke died. It summed up his life as empty and wasted. Maybe the Duke had a sense of that as well. From "Prince of Wales Superstar" in the 1920s, to a largely irrelevant and forgotten figure in Paris a few decades later, it was quite a fall from grace.

Russophile · #**268** 05-08-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I hope they managed to give each other a measure of happiness. Some of their biographers seemed to be determined to show that they had a thoroughly unhappy life - I hope that isn't the case. It doesn't seem to be, but I suppose you can never really tell.

I believe they had a "happy" life, but not a very "fulfilling" one. They had parties, they had friends, Aline, Countess of the Ramones (I know I spelled that wrong-whoops!) was a big supporter, they traveled. they were always dressed to the 9's. But I don't think they had anything that they were really passionate about to fulfill their lives.

iowabelle · #**269** 05-08-2008, 03:22 PM

There are certainly allegations that the Duchess cheated on him after the marriage and treated him rather badly.

I think part of the problem was that after the abdication they didn't know how to spend their lives. Remember how the Duke tried to retain some of his prestige during World War II and how quickly Bertie and Elizabeth cut him off. (Of course, Bertie really had to curtail any possibility of a second court, especially during wartime.) But how should an ex-king spend his time? There haven't been many successful examples, unless the monarch was elderly (I'm thinking of The Netherlands in particular).

The Countess of the Ramones wrote a book (I think it was called The Spy Wore Red) about her espionage activities and her friendship with the Windsors. I enjoyed the book very much.

Russophile · #**270** 05-08-2008, 04:47 PM

Aline wrote 3 books, one of which is "The Spy went Dancing". I can't remember the name of the other one. Peter says she might have fudged on some stuff though.

One book I read on the Duchess had David walking in on her and Jimmy Donohue (cousin of Barbara Hutton, in fact, it may have been the "Poor Little Rich Girl" book that came from) where she told him "Look David! I'm Queen of the Fairies!" which had David reduced to tears.

What exactly does a King do? What was David QUALIFIED for besides looking dapper? He was bred to rule. So it was a bit of a jolt not to be able to do anything. I think Prince Charles and Prince Andrew are much more well-rounded individuals. If the Throne went tomorrow (God forbid!) I don't think Prince Charles would have any lack of activities to fill his life with and it would be full. Especially with the Woman He Loves by his side.

MARG · #**271** 05-09-2008, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile

What exactly does a King do? What was David QUALIFIED for besides looking dapper? He was bred to rule. So it was a bit of a jolt not to be able to do anything. . . .

He may have been bred to rule but all he did as Prince of Wales was party, womanise and party even more. I haven't read anything much about what he may have contributed as POW, what charities did he support, what minor King-in-Waiting anything did he do except please himself?

And to top it all off he was politically niaive, and totally out of touch with his subjects, barring the rarified society in which he moved. Worse, he didn't even bother trying. He simply expected that he could have whatever he wanted whenever he wanted it.

Surprise, surprise, his family, the govenment and the majority of his subjects saw it differently.

**Elspeth** · #**272** 05-09-2008, 03:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG

He may have been bred to rule but all he did as Prince of Wales was party, womanise and party even more. I haven't read anything much about what he may have contributed as POW, what charities did he support, what minor King-in-Waiting anything did he do except please himself?

He went on a lot of long overseas tours, particularly to parts of the Empire. Although there was a fair bit of pleasing himself involved, the general opinion seemed to be that he worked hard and did a good job at representing Britain.

Quote:

And to top it all off he was politically niaive, and totally out of touch with his subjects, barring the rarified society in which he moved. Worse, he didn't even bother trying. He simply expected that he could have whatever he wanted whenever he wanted it.

Surprise, surprise, his family, the govenment and the majority of his subjects saw it differently.

Apparently he was very popular right up until the scandal about Wallis broke - so much so that the government was afraid that he might be able to rally public support behind him if he was allowed to appeal to the public. His family and the government saw it differently with a few exceptions, but he wasn't that much of a worthless waste of space.

MARG · #**273** 05-09-2008, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Apparently he was very popular right up until the scandal about Wallis broke . . .

Of course he was popular. He was, young, handsome, rich, titled, a Prince, and of course, the next King. They were the grey days of the Great Depression and wierdly enough reports, photos and newsreels of him living life large, the fact that he was very attractive to women, all of those charismatic "quantity X" factors, did much to raise peoples spirits. They were proud of their Prince!

America had their silver screen idols, Douglas Fairbanks et al. Britain had the real thing, the Prince of Wales.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

. . . so much so that the government was afraid that he might be able to rally public support behind him if he was allowed to appeal to the public.

The government was also as much out of touch with "the common man (or woman)" in thinking this as, in the minds of the majority of his "Subjects", men didn't marry their mistresses and their King certainly couldn't marry a (twice divorced) courtesan.

When all was said and done all that was left was a sad little life spend in the endless pursuit of some kind of purpose. It may also explain the incredibly poor judgement regarding the Nazi Party fiasco.

**Elspeth** · #**274** 05-10-2008, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MARG

Of course he was popular. He was, young, handsome, rich, titled, a Prince, and of course, the next King. They were the grey days of the Great Depression and wierdly enough reports, photos and newsreels of him living life large, the fact that he was very attractive to women, all of those charismatic "quantity X" factors, did much to raise peoples spirits. They were proud of their Prince!

People also felt that he cared about them. Royals, even with their very different lifestyle, can often connect with the people in ways that politicians can't, and he seemed to have that quality.

Quote:

The government was also as much out of touch with "the common man (or woman)" in thinking this as, in the minds of the majority of his "Subjects", men didn't marry their mistresses and their King certainly couldn't marry a (twice divorced) courtesan.

It sounded as though Baldwin and the Archbishop were rather concerned that after the initial shock, the people might come round to the idea. They probably wouldn't have, but I'm not sure it was that much of a done deal.

Quote:

When all was said and done all that was left was a sad little life spend in the endless pursuit of some kind of purpose. It may also explain the incredibly poor judgement regarding the Nazi Party fiasco.

That wasn't entirely their fault. He wanted to serve his country, but on the condition that the Establishment recognise Wallis. The Establishment, mostly in the persons of Queen Elizabeth and Queen Mary, refused. Sure, he could have gone off and done good deeds in France, but he was British and he wanted to connect with his country.

branchg · #**275** 05-10-2008, 08:06 PM

Constitutionally, Baldwin was on shaky ground and waiting until the Coronation took place probably would have resulted in a morganatic marriage with Edward remaining on the throne.

The King does not need permission of the Government to marry nor does he need the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury. As The Sovereign, he is above the law.

However, if the Government had resigned in protest, a constitutional crisis would have been created. At that point, Parliament would have no choice but to pass an Act of Exclusion removing him from the throne and granting it to The Duke of York. Edward knew the monarchy could not afford to risk being abolished by Parliament and abdicated to avoid a conflict.

Menarue · #**276** 05-11-2008, 09:01 AM

David, from his biographers seemed to spend most of the period of the second World War bothering his brother for a title for Wallis he was obsessed and as someone observed for someone who had risen from nothing Duchess was a very good title indeed. I really don´t think that David, when he abdicated, realised exactly what he would be losing. I don´t think he regretted marrying Wallis but he would have preferred to have had his cake and eat it too, and I have no doubt, after reading many books on the subject that in this case it was "one loving and the other being loved". I don´t think Wallis ever realised why the British public disliked her so much, in fact I don´t think, despite being married to an ex king, that she ever really understood anything about the British royal family and their traditions and what being royal actually meant and that it was anything more than having a title and being curtseyed to.