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
 
  #781  
Old 07-28-2011, 04:19 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Dane View Post
I highlighted the points you made that are incorrect. You are right to say that the direct reason Edward VIII was forced to abdicate was because of his relationship to Wallis, but to honestly think that Britain would have been led well by a Nazi sympathizer when Britain was at war with Nazi Germany, is simply wrong.


I know this topic is supposed to be discussed elsewhere, but I can't move your post from a thread to another one, so hopefully a mod will do it for me.

You have no idea, when Edward became/if he even was a Nazi sympathiser, my personal opinion however, it was done out of spite to his family who cruelly disowned him. My opinion might be wrong in your eyes, but it certainly ain't in mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by American Dane View Post
Britain was saved from a monarch who would have led his country into the lion's den thankfully by a simple misguided heart.
But this thread is about William's suitability, not Edward's...
I did not bring up Edward and his suitability, expat did.
You cannot wholeheartedly 100% say that Britain was saved from this man, as you cannot change the past. So your words are about as good as mine in the grand scheme of things.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #782  
Old 07-28-2011, 04:34 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,197
Actually the Nazi's came to power in Germany around 1932/1933, and since Edward became involved with Wallis in 1934, and she also had some type of relationship/friendship with the German ambassador as well as a certain Italian Count prior to the Abdication but there is an ample proof (i.e. any biography regarding Edward VIII) that Edward was in fact sympathetic to the Nazi's (and Facism) prior to the Abdication. But as also noted in the past in this thread, there were a lot of well off people (financially and socially) who supported Hitler (i.e. Facism).

His support of them had nothing to do with the way his family treated him. Although one would agree that his support became devoted and public following the Abdication. Like a little child who is angry that he didn't get his way so he acts out to get attention. He did all kinds of treacherous and deceitful things i.e. being an handful when the Government tried to get him out of harms way before France fell, demanding money and a title for Wallis when quite frankly, the Government had a LOT on its plate (like a WAR), supporting the notion of being President of an English Republic (if that isn't treasonous than I don't know what is), etc.

IMO if Edward did not abdicate he certainly would have held the opinion of Chamberlain and did nothing to stop Germany. Although to be honest, the British Monarch has no political power but he was of the mindset that war should have been avoided at all costs. And he kept this mindset after the war and when information regarding the concentration camps became known.

Not a quality one seeks in a monarch IMO. Really, after the War ....England should have put up a monument to Churchill and Wallis (she kept him out of the way!).
__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #783  
Old 07-28-2011, 05:57 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
My dear Zonk,

Well said. I think Edward VIII was ill-suited to be king and his actions support my opinion (leaving the red boxes lying around, drink stains on papers, shirking his duties when King and delegating those duties to others when he was socializing with Wallis and friends, etc). In some respects, the opposition to his union with Wallis may have given him a reason to leave what he did not really want, or, if Edward wanted it, he did not want it enough to also do what was required of him as King, i.e., be a good constitutional monarch.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #784  
Old 07-28-2011, 09:10 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,197
I've read in a couple of books that some of Edward's advisers thought he would elope with Wallis before George V died or before his coronation. But they never address the fact that Wallis was married to Ernest Simpson at the time. So the only thing I can think of was that George V died before Wallis could divorce Ernest and marry Edward.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #785  
Old 07-29-2011, 01:17 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,050
Wallis' inconvenient husband not withstanding, if he had married Wallis before the death of George V he would never have been King and would therefore never have been in a position to abdicate.

As heir he could not marry without the approval of the King and Parliament. To do so would have cost him the throne immediately and Wallis any chance of any title, let alone that of HRH Queen Wallis.

It would have been a far uglier scandal had he done so. Imagine a King of failing health seeing his son and heir disinherited.
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #786  
Old 07-29-2011, 08:05 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
I truly think that some of the hatred towards Edward and this supposed theory that he was ill equipped to be King just comes from anger that he had the guts to put himself above the establishment he was born into. He dared to refuse to play by the rules and as a result he is continuously vilified and portrayed as a person who would have sold the country out to the Nazis if he was king during WWII.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #787  
Old 07-29-2011, 08:26 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Sympathizing with the Nazis in '32 was different than '34 and different again from '36 or '39 or '41 (etc).

When I look at all the crazy ultimately repressive political parties people sympathize with today, I wonder how they'd like it if one of those "causes" went all Nazi on them - it could happen. I've been watching online Norwegian nationalists backpedal stiffly in the past week - case in point.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #788  
Old 07-29-2011, 08:29 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
I truly think that some of the hatred towards Edward and this supposed theory that he was ill equipped to be King just comes from anger that he had the guts to put himself above the establishment he was born into. He dared to refuse to play by the rules and as a result he is continuously vilified and portrayed as a person who would have sold the country out to the Nazis if he was king during WWII.

I don't see it as hatred but more relief that he left.

He was totally unsuited, poorly prepared, no interest in the role, no idea of what his position was, wasn't trusted by the government of the day - who actually took the decision to restrict the information that was sent to him on the grounds of security (how do I know - well a distant cousin of mine - my grandmother's second cousin - was a member of the government of the day and he was involved in the decisions about what information was to be sent - much less than was sent a year later to George VI).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #789  
Old 07-29-2011, 08:34 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
Fascinating details, IluvBertie - and makes so much sense.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #790  
Old 07-29-2011, 09:24 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,050
Who needs to wait for Madonna's new movie to "rehabilitate" King Edward and thus Wallis Simpson. Let's just re-write history!

People don't hate Edward for his guts . . . . . they despise him for his lack thereof.

By all reports Wallis didn't want him to abdicate but he did it anyway because he couldn't change the law. Namely that Parliament would have no say in his marriage. He also knew that no Archbishop in the UK would perform a marriage service for them let alone crown Wallis as his consort. Hell she was still married and whilst his fast set of socialites behaved in a publicly immoral way there is no way the Church of England would publicly endorse such behaviour.

So, he took the 'high moral ground" and abdicated or, threw his toys out of the cot, stamped his pampered little feet and stormed off in a huff, intent on causing as much discomfort and unhappiness as he could for his family (obtaining vast amounts of money from his family by deception), mixing with overtly pro-Nazi society in the years leading up to WWII. And if that hurt his erstwhile country . . . . though!

Oh yes, a Prince among men indeed! And if that wasn't enough, upon the death of his brother, he and his little band of supporters tried to steal the throne back from Princess Elizabeth . . . . . she was, after all, just a girl!

Cowards all!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #791  
Old 07-30-2011, 12:00 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,197
I am sorry I just can't feel any pity for Edward. He was totally unsuitable for the position of King (and not that everyone who has been King has been great or had the character and morals to do so) but he couldn't even just pretend to be interested in the red boxes, how his affairs affected his family, how the government had better things to worry about when war was declared than Wallis's title, any of it. He was just bad.

I do think Wallis got the short end of the stick although there are certainly reasons why one can't feel pity for her. The only pity I feel for her is that I think she gets blamed for his Abdication when as already mentioned he was so stubborn and arrogant that he made the decision all by himself.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #792  
Old 07-30-2011, 12:21 AM
American Dane's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New York and Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 544
I have a question, that perhaps has been answered in this thread previously or in some biography, but why was it so imperative that they be married? She was certainly okay with being a mistress of the Prince of Wales/King and I've never heard of her being the one to push towards marriage. So why couldn't he have just kept her as a mistress? Was it simply his subconscious (or conscious) way of getting out of his duties? Of course, as previously stated, it was much fortune that he didn't last as King anyway...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #793  
Old 07-30-2011, 12:38 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,197
I think that is very much up for debate.

Wallis, I believe would have been content to be the mistress of the King....the power behind the throne so to speak. She had the social life, the jewels, and money if she wanted why take on the burden of royal duties, having a heir (though I don't believe one of them could have a kid), etc.

Edward I think took on the woman's 1930's role. What man doesn't want to be married to the woman he loves? Isn't that what we all dream of...a happy husband/wife, kids and home? When you put it in simple terms like that you understand some of his thought process. He wanted to be married, tied emotionally and legally to his soul mate, someone to share the joys and burdens of being King.

The problem for Edward was that his soulmate was someone else's wife (and someone else's ex wife in fact). England and the Commonwealth could not abide by a divorced woman with two living husbands. Its interesting how they say two living ex husbands as though it would be better if they were dead. And in fact, I believe that death of an ex husband would have been better for Wallis, as the Anglican church would have considered her to be a widow and not a divorcee....bad luck for her that both of her exes were alive.

So in order to think about why Wallis's history was such a problem you need to think in 1930's terms and in not 2011. Now pretty much anything goes IMO. The class system was/is very much of 1930's England. Honestly, fidelity, etc were very important character traits (although to be honest people did cheat, steal, lie, etc.) Nowadays we don't expect much from our leaders because they have shown to be fallible but than you did....they were held to a higher esteem.

As someone said (Churchill or the PM)....the lower class hate that she is American and don't mind the husbands and the upper classes hate the fact that she has had husbands, or something like that. She was just totally unsuitable to be Queen but very suitable for a mistress. Elspeth (an old mod) used to say that she found it quite hypocritical that she was okay for a mistress but not good enough for a wife. So its okay to cheat just not marry the person you are cheating with.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #794  
Old 07-30-2011, 02:30 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by American Dane View Post
I have a question, that perhaps has been answered in this thread previously or in some biography, but why was it so imperative that they be married? She was certainly okay with being a mistress of the Prince of Wales/King and I've never heard of her being the one to push towards marriage. So why couldn't he have just kept her as a mistress? Was it simply his subconscious (or conscious) way of getting out of his duties? Of course, as previously stated, it was much fortune that he didn't last as King anyway...

If you think back a decade or so we had a Prince of Wales with an acknowledge 'non-negotiable' mistress. No one really minded until it became an issue at a wedding - a private event but still one where protocol had to be followed and said mistress wasn't going to be able to sit with her partner.

So we had Charles marrying Camilla in 2005 - and some people opposed that marriage on the grounds that she was divorced, some on the grounds that she had played a part in the break-up of Charles' previous wedding, some on the grounds that they simply want Charles to be miserable for ever, etc etc but the main reason why Charles married Camilla at that time was so that he would be able to have the woman he loved by his side at all functions - what person doesn't want that.

Step back to 1936 - divorced people weren't accepted in society so there was no way Edward would ever be able to take her to any event - e.g. Camilla was invited to the Jubilee in 2002 and sat a few rows behind the main family - in 1935 - at George V's Jubilee there was no way that would have been possible.

So - why didn't he want her to remain as simply his mistress - because he wanted to be able to share his entire life with her and he couldn't do that if she wasn't his wife.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #795  
Old 07-30-2011, 02:36 AM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
I like Edward for standing up for himself and his beliefs and not giving into pressure. I am not going to say whether either he or Wallis was wrong, but I genuinely do not believe they have ever done anything so reprehensible that history has to beat up on them so much. Now not only is he the man who gave up the throne and she the woman who dared to steal England's King, but they are also Nazi sympathizers. I wonder if in another few decades they will be rumored to be cannibals and baby killers as well.
I feel that what Edward had to suffer through and what Margaret had to suffer through laid the path to Charles refusing to go the way of either of them and to stand by the woman he loved and remain Prince of Wales and the future king.
So some say Edward was unsuitable to be King and Wallis unsuitable to be Queen, well the whole establishment of having a monarchy isn't based on suitability; the idea as a whole is based on where and when you were born and who your parents are.
At least in here people are acknowledging that Wallis had no desire to be Queen of England and didnt want Edward to abdicate. Most people who hate WnE portray her as some evil scheming woman who wanted to be a queen.
__________________
Princess Grace, April 19, 1956
Princess Margaret Rose, May 6, 1960
Crown Princess Mette-Marit, August 25, 2001
Jaqueline Bouvier Kennedy, September 12, 1953
Countess Stephanie of Belgium October 20, 2012
Reply With Quote
  #796  
Old 07-30-2011, 02:49 AM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,050
The Duke and Duchess ongoing stance regarding the Nazi Party is a well documented fact of history. However, there are no verified reports of cannibalism or baby killing but, I'm sure if you start a forum on the subject . . . . the wacko's will come!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #797  
Old 07-30-2011, 06:39 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
I like Edward for standing up for himself and his beliefs and not giving into pressure. I am not going to say whether either he or Wallis was wrong, but I genuinely do not believe they have ever done anything so reprehensible that history has to beat up on them so much. Now not only is he the man who gave up the throne and she the woman who dared to steal England's King, but they are also Nazi sympathizers. I wonder if in another few decades they will be rumored to be cannibals and baby killers as well.
I feel that what Edward had to suffer through and what Margaret had to suffer through laid the path to Charles refusing to go the way of either of them and to stand by the woman he loved and remain Prince of Wales and the future king.
So some say Edward was unsuitable to be King and Wallis unsuitable to be Queen, well the whole establishment of having a monarchy isn't based on suitability; the idea as a whole is based on where and when you were born and who your parents are.
At least in here people are acknowledging that Wallis had no desire to be Queen of England and didnt want Edward to abdicate. Most people who hate WnE portray her as some evil scheming woman who wanted to be a queen.
To accept what you say, it must be assumed that Edward wanted the throne more than he wanted Wallis-I don't believe this to be the case. Whilst he enjoyed the role of PoW, being King and having to submit to the restrictions and responsibilities that came with it was beyond him-it may have been, that all his life he had hoped that something would occur to prevent it-and then there was Wallis. If she disappeared, there would be nothing between him and the role from which he wanted to free himself.
As for Wallis wanting to be Queen, it's a very long way from my own belief that she never really wanted to marry him. Theirs was a very onesided affair-love, need, dependency being all on his side. She offered to go away (not what one would expect of a woman who would be Queen) and he responded by saying that wherever she went he would find her. He also threatened suicide (not the actions of a man who puts duty to his country above all else) If she was ever to extricate herself from the terrible burden of responsibility that the affair had become her only hope lay in persuading him not to abdicate, and this she attempted to do. It may have been, that reading between the lines she saw that he couldn't have the throne and her, little realizing that he didn't actually want the throne and needed her to prevent him from being tied to it-what irony!!!
I think it possible that, for the rest of his life, he made vague noises about regaining the throne he had been so eager to leave behind, but I believe he was much happier to serve Wallis than to serve his country.
I think your comments on monarchy and and their suitability are valid, however, I am reminded of what Russia did to theirs when they were deemed to be unsuitable!!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #798  
Old 07-30-2011, 07:08 AM
Bundtrock's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Irving, United States
Posts: 46
The Duke of Windsor simply exemplified that not everyone is willing to make "the trade."

To be Monarch is an accident of birth, you get everyone bowing and curtsying to you, you get to live in Palaces, have multiple servants, rub elbows with heads of state, have fabulous wealth, jewels, fancy cars, beautiful clothes, extensive world wide travel.

In exchange, you give up your life, your privacy, your freedom of choice, your right to choose your love, your right to a political opinion.

The Duke of Windsor simply was not willing to make that trade off and he has been villified and castigated for that.

Frankly people need to get over it, he was the first, he will not be the last to do so.
__________________
Camilla Bundtrock
Reply With Quote
  #799  
Old 07-30-2011, 05:47 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 913
He was just a selfish quitter, not at all noble

Many a monarch-in-waiting has dreaded the destiny which awaited them. The Duke of York, he who became George VI, and his wife were appalled at the idea that they were to become King and Queen. They loved their life as it was, and they took on the duty with sadness and determination. They didn't say, "No, not us! We don't wanna do it." When the young Elizabeth learned that she would eventually be Queen, her sister Margaret said, "Oh, poor you."

Although the BRF refer to the Firm, those who would be King or Queen look at it as a holy obligation and not as something to fling aside because it is inconvenient or difficult. They just get on with it.

Edward VIII refused to get on with it, refused to do his duty, put his own feelings above anyone else's, and caused a near-Constitutional crisis.

What he did wasn't standing up for his beliefs and not giving into pressure.
He was a quitter, pure and simple. And Wallis merely happened to be the last in a long line of married women he had committed adultery with.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #800  
Old 07-30-2011, 06:14 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
Many a monarch-in-waiting has dreaded the destiny which awaited them. The Duke of York, he who became George VI, and his wife were appalled at the idea that they were to become King and Queen. They loved their life as it was, and they took on the duty with sadness and determination. They didn't say, "No, not us! We don't wanna do it." When the young Elizabeth learned that she would eventually be Queen, her sister Margaret said, "Oh, poor you."

Although the BRF refer to the Firm, those who would be King or Queen look at it as a holy obligation and not as something to fling aside because it is inconvenient or difficult. They just get on with it.

Edward VIII refused to get on with it, refused to do his duty, put his own feelings above anyone else's, and caused a near-Constitutional crisis.

What he did wasn't standing up for his beliefs and not giving into pressure.
He was a quitter, pure and simple. And Wallis merely happened to be the last in a long line of married women he had committed adultery with.

You have stated the case wonderfully.

Edward VII had doubts when the time came but he did what he had been raised to believe was his sacred duty.

George V also expressed doubts - when his older brother died - but again he accepted the duty and did it very well in trying times - WWI, General Strike, Great Depression (sometimes I think people forget the times over which George V reigned). Then his eldest son and heir turns out to be unwilling to make sacrifices and do his duty. Fortunately his second son understood what his role was and again rose to the challenge.

Charles - when asked years and years ago about how he felt when he realised he was going to be King replied something like 'well you don't sit up in the pram and go 'woopee' which also was a telling statement - 'it is my duty, my destiny and I will get on with it' really. He was very young when he made that comment.

Even William has apparently expressed misgivings about the future - even the lipreading at the wedding said a lot when Catherine arrived at the altar and he turned to her father and allegedly said 'and you wanted a quiet little wedding' or something like that - was again 'look we know what we would have like but...in my position as a future King this is what I have to do and I, and now you, have to accept it'.

Very different attitudes to Edward the runaway, fortunately for Britain, King.
__________________

__________________
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 current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:10 PM.

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]