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
 
  #801  
Old 07-30-2011, 10:03 PM
MARG's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 4,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bundtrock View Post
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.
Gee! Guess what? Dearest David still had people bow to him, lived in fabulous houses, had multiple servants, continued to rub elbows with heads of state, had fabulous wealth, jewels, fancy cars, beautiful clothes and expensive world wide travel.

He just didn't work a day in his life!
__________________

__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #802  
Old 07-30-2011, 10:19 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
England expects every man to due his duty. Edward VIII didn't and George VI did.

Post 1939 E & W looked like a very pitiful couple who went on and lived a very shallow & empty life contributing nothing to the nation in which they lived. Bertie & Elizabeth devoted themselves to their people and country, and while Bertie died young Elizabeth lived another 50 years after him still carrying on with her public life until the end. Hers was a life well lived.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #803  
Old 07-30-2011, 10:21 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
I think you meant Edward VIII and not the VII....the VII did his duty as well. And didn't turn out too bad
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #804  
Old 07-30-2011, 10:50 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sandusky, United States
Posts: 120
Whether it was for good or bad, noble or selfish, I do think David abdicating did pave for modern royals to choose whether or not to pass the legacy onto their children. Witness Princess Anne. Witness Princesses Caroline and Stephanie. Not to mention marrying a commoner (William certainly wasn't the first, even if the media completely glossed over it). Not to mention marrying a divorcee (I'm sure Charles is secretly grateful to his late great-Uncle for paving the way). Not all that long ago, it was unthinkable for royalty to do any of those things, but now it's commonplace (or at least not that scandalous).

Much as I love royalty, I do think it is an outmoded idea that has served its purpose. Which is why I can't feel angry at David for abdicating. The world had changed from his parent's day, his grandparent's day: royalty don't rule but rather serve as figureheads.

I do take issue with David being a playboy, for devoting his whole life to aesthetism. However, I don't think it was fair for him (or any royal) to have to "serve" just because they were born into the position.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #805  
Old 07-31-2011, 04:21 PM
Bundtrock's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Irving, United States
Posts: 46
My point was, that in the world we live in today, it is ludicrous to expect someone to give up their entire life, freedom of choices for duty, simply because of the parents they were born to.

I have tremendous respect and admiration for those who do, I feel beyond privileged to have lived my entire life with HM Queen Elizabeth II on the throne and the excellent example and standard of behavior she has set while doing so.

But I can also see someone like HRH The Duke of Windsor who would make another choice.

Being born in the USA, I am well aware of boundless Patriotism with a capital P and the demand of total, blind commitment, the "my country right or wrong, love it or leave it" mindset imposed by a society at large. But we all know that doesn't work, anywhere in the world.

We can all see the dramatic social changes that have happened in ALL western societies over the past 60 years. Yes, divorce is now accepted and ignored, in fact it is expected as a way of life by many. Same as out of wedlock birth, that just to be scandalous, now one gives it a second glance it is so common. We now have same sex marriage in Western societies.

What was once scandalous in proper British society is now for the most part ignored as well as openly talked about. Certainly that affects the Monarchy and how it operates, as was posted before, see the Heir Apparent and his second wife who herself is a divorcee.
__________________
Camilla Bundtrock
Reply With Quote
  #806  
Old 07-31-2011, 04:34 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
"Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis"
Tempora mutantur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The times change, and we are being changed with them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #807  
Old 07-31-2011, 05:00 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bundtrock View Post
My point was, that in the world we live in today, it is ludicrous to expect someone to give up their entire life, freedom of choices for duty, simply because of the parents they were born to.

I have tremendous respect and admiration for those who do, I feel beyond privileged to have lived my entire life with HM Queen Elizabeth II on the throne and the excellent example and standard of behavior she has set while doing so.

But I can also see someone like HRH The Duke of Windsor who would make another choice.

Being born in the USA, I am well aware of boundless Patriotism with a capital P and the demand of total, blind commitment, the "my country right or wrong, love it or leave it" mindset imposed by a society at large. But we all know that doesn't work, anywhere in the world.

We can all see the dramatic social changes that have happened in ALL western societies over the past 60 years. Yes, divorce is now accepted and ignored, in fact it is expected as a way of life by many. Same as out of wedlock birth, that just to be scandalous, now one gives it a second glance it is so common. We now have same sex marriage in Western societies.

What was once scandalous in proper British society is now for the most part ignored as well as openly talked about. Certainly that affects the Monarchy and how it operates, as was posted before, see the Heir Apparent and his second wife who herself is a divorcee.
What you are saying is correct, but as the topic of the thread is the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, we are pretty much going on what society expected of the British Royal family and the future King during this time period.

We can talk about social, gender and economic quality into we are blue in the face but that doesn't change the fact that Edward and Wallis were born 60 to 100 years too early.

Renata quoted something that goes along with what you are saying, and I am going to quote something else that I believe those who are critical of the actions of David (and Wallis) are basing their opinions of.

Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy used to say this quite often when people interviewed her about the deaths of her sons, and this is how she said she coped with life's tragedies:

To Whom Much is Given, Much is Required.

Edward, as a member of the British Royal Family, Prince of Wales and future King of England had a lot and I am not just talking about material items. He had the hope of his people. People held him in high esteem and it was thought that he would make great changes (i.e. coal miners, etc.) while maintaining the British monarchy and empire. It it a lot to expect of one person, yes, I would agree that it is. But really all he had to was his duty: read your boxes, do your royal engagements, provide an heir (and if not hey you got your brothers so thats okay). and he chucked it all for personal happiness. People were (and are to this day) died for their country (for King and Country) and he couldn't put his personal happiness aside? I am sorry that's pretty selfish IMO. And than after he left, just more petty and selfish actions. Oh you have a war going on Mr. Prime Minister, well I am not leaving Portugal until I get assurances that my wife will be received by the BRF and she will get her title. Selfish Selfish Selfish!

In regards to your statement " My point was, that in the world we live in today, it is ludicrous to expect someone to give up their entire life, freedom of choices for duty, simply because of the parents they were born to." well personally, I wish we had more people like that. Everyone is so self involved these days, worried about M E and not their fellow man, and always worried about their personal happiness and not anyone else. We could use a bit more of thinking about others and doing your duty.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #808  
Old 08-01-2011, 03:40 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
I wonder, do we Brits want a RF who sets an example, by their exemplary behaviour, as does the Queen, to the rest of us. Do we want a RF that we can look up to, admire and revere.......or would we prefer them to be no different from us? I'm not sure that we can have it both ways. I agree entirely with what Zonk has to say and will follow RFKs quote with one from the QM, "Service is the rent we pay for privilege."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #809  
Old 08-01-2011, 05:59 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,189
There can be joy in serving other, whereas a constant search for "happiness" can be ultimately unfulfilling; because we are never truly content in this life and things rarely go the way we plan them. We shouldn't expect others to have to deal with the mess we leave behind when we go off in search of "happiness." That's what the Duke of Windsor did. He disappointed a lot of people and left his nervous, stammering younger brother to clean up his mess. Just because society moves in a certain direction, that doesn't mean that the drift is sound.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Everyone is so self involved these days, worried about M E and not their fellow man, and always worried about their personal happiness and not anyone else. We could use a bit more of thinking about others and doing your duty.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #810  
Old 08-01-2011, 06:01 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,189
Personally, I prefer the former. But then, I'm an anachronism these days myself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsaritsa View Post
I wonder, do we Brits want a RF who sets an example, by their exemplary behaviour, as does the Queen, to the rest of us. Do we want a RF that we can look up to
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #811  
Old 08-01-2011, 06:18 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
Quote:
Originally Posted by CordeliaFitzgerald View Post
Whether it was for good or bad, noble or selfish, I do think David abdicating did pave for modern royals to choose whether or not to pass the legacy onto their children. Witness Princess Anne. Witness Princesses Caroline and Stephanie. Not to mention marrying a commoner (William certainly wasn't the first, even if the media completely glossed over it). Not to mention marrying a divorcee (I'm sure Charles is secretly grateful to his late great-Uncle for paving the way). Not all that long ago, it was unthinkable for royalty to do any of those things, but now it's commonplace (or at least not that scandalous).

Much as I love royalty, I do think it is an outmoded idea that has served its purpose. Which is why I can't feel angry at David for abdicating. The world had changed from his parent's day, his grandparent's day: royalty don't rule but rather serve as figureheads.

I do take issue with David being a playboy, for devoting his whole life to aesthetism. However, I don't think it was fair for him (or any royal) to have to "serve" just because they were born into the position.

I completely agree. David standing up to the institution and choosing his own way did force some changes to occur in England and in the institution of the BRF, despite the fact that they tried to maintain the status quo for awhile. Just 2 decades after Wallis and David, Princess Mary was faced with the same situation.
Another thing the David situation proves is just because someone is born into a family as the oldest, doesn't mean they should be running a country...or reigning a country as is the case in England.
__________________
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
  #812  
Old 08-01-2011, 06:32 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
I completely agree. David standing up to the institution and choosing his own way did force some changes to occur in England and in the institution of the BRF, despite the fact that they tried to maintain the status quo for awhile. Just 2 decades after Wallis and David, Princess Mary was faced with the same situation.
Another thing the David situation proves is just because someone is born into a family as the oldest, doesn't mean they should be running a country...or reigning a country as is the case in England.
How did David's leaving force the BRF to change the status quo? If you are referring to the members of the BRF being able to marry divorced persons, I am sorry but that has nothing to do with David but more with the time are a changing. Both Charles, Anne and Michael of Kent benefited from that not because of David.

As it stands now, the first born male is still the lead in succession even if an older sister is already born. And I disagree that David's situation proves that just because someone is born into a family is the oldest, doesn't mean that they should not be running the country, or become King of England.

David is the exception not the rule. Can you imagine if Anne, Edward, and/or Andrew had to fight with Charles to become to prove who was the right person to be King or Queen? Who determines the next ruler --- that isn't based on jealous, games, manipulations, fighting, etc. We don't need to go off topic with that but I think you get my point.

Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion about David and they cant sweeten or overlook his flaws by saying that he had a right to be happy, a right to pick his wife, etc. Well, that's all good and true if he was plain Mr. David Windsor. But he was not. He was the Princes of Wales, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, and he had a duty .....period. No ifs and buts about it. And he chucked for his own personal happiness. And not only did he chuck it but he was burning bridges on the way out. You can talk about love all you want, all I see is Selfishness.

Lying to the King about his personal fortune. Selfish. Worrying about being received by the BRF and a title for Wallis, while Europe was fighting a madman. Selfish. Talking about being President of an English Republic. Treason and Selfish. I don't agree but understand that alot of upper classes supported Facism and Communism (why when they had the most to lose but whatever) but even after the news about the concentration camps came out still maintaining that Hitler wasn't all that bad. Selfish, Sad, Loving (to his wife and mother) Deluded, Cunning, Treacherous.....all aspects of the personality of Edward VIII.

So we can agree to disagree about the love affair of the century. That's all well and good. But I am sorry...this man was horrible. And again, England was well off without him.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #813  
Old 08-01-2011, 06:59 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
I seriously think you need a revamp on what a horrible man really is. David might have been selfish (no duh England) but he was in no way horrible. I do truly believe that what he and Wallis went through along with what Margaret and Peter went through influenced Prince Charles and his decision to not give up Camilla. Is Charles selfish as well because he refused to give up the woman he loved, or is he even more selfish because not only did he refuse to give her up but he also refused to give up his inherited rights?
David loved Wallis and it is no surprise that he wanted what was best for her and for her to be respected as the wife of the Duke of Windsor.
And here again lies the point I am trying to make, that because Edward VIII chose to abdicate and live with the woman he loved as opposed to being King, he is somehow regarded as a Nazi traitor who was virtually in bed with Adolf Hitler. I will never understand people's willingness to jump to such conclusions so easily about a man simply because he did a selfish thing that made him happy. This is definitely the fault of that documentary calling Edward the Traitor King.
I admire both George and Edward for different reasons, I admit George is higher on my list because of his courage; but no amount of smear against Edward will make my admiration to him for living his life the way he wanted to live it, falter.
__________________
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
  #814  
Old 08-01-2011, 07:09 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Why people associate Edward with Hitler is simple - the photo of them together after the abdication is one indication. Edward's own words in support of Hitler another and his attitude to the idea of being a puppet leader of Britain under Hitler a third.

Simply really - he is associated through his own words and deeds.

Charles wouldn't be with Camilla now if society's attitude to divorce hadn't changed over the latter part of the 20th C.

Remember in the 1930s one party or the other had to be found at fault in a divorce but that changed in the 1970s with society and the government of the day accepting the fact that marriages breakdown because they breakdown - through equal fault on both sides - so now we have 'no fault' divorces.

Another 20 years on and the CoE agreed that it would be wrong to continually deny divorced people the right to remarry within the Church - that is when it became possible for Charles to marry Camilla (although they didn't actually marry in a church it was by 2005 possible).

It had nothing to do with Edward but had everything to do with societal changes.

In the 1930s a number of people wouldn't allow divorced people in their homes - and I am not talking about royalty but ordinary people. That wouldn't be the case now.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #815  
Old 08-01-2011, 07:16 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
I don't base my decision on David based on his love for Wallis. I base my decision/opinions on Wallis for things that I have mentioned in my previous posts. He was a horrible and selfish person, which I also stated. And yes, I think Charles was selfish in regards to his relationship with Camilla. But Charles played within the system and in the end he got what he wanted. And while I don't like how it all went down, I respect that the fact they are in love, are good for each other and are married. You can't compare Charles with Edward IMO because of a key difference: while both Wallis and Camilla were non negotiable ---- Charles wanted the system to accept Camilla,and he did the necessary steps and time period for that to happen. Edward was so impatient and unmoving that he didn't. Now while I respect and agree with Edward's opinion that he couldn't get crowned knowing that he wanted to marry Wallis and make her Queen (doing so would be bad faith), he basically tried to do the system in on his way out. That I can't accept.

You really can't even compare the situation to Margaret's, as she gave up Peter --- and while the rest of her life wasn't that great with respect to love and companionship --- she knew her duty (or at least where the checks and lifestyle were coming from).

It would be different if he fell in love with an unsuitable person, gave up the throne and went quietly into the night but he didn't. While parts of that isn't his fault (there was definitely a lot of press coverage of him and Wallis not all of his making), a lot of it was. And no great love story of the century is going to change that. He lied to the brother who adored him about how much money he had, basically using emotional blackmail since he held the leases to Balmoral and Sandringham (they were given to him directly by the late King George V they didn't belong to the Crown), after being King and NOT reading his red boxes because he was so busy entertaining Wallis, in his attempt to "help" King George VI, he often gave contradictory advice that the ministers were giving the King, he never missed an opportunity to haggle for more money and Wallis's title (which lets be honest if he hadn't lied in the beginning George might have been a bit more flexible); you have Churchill trying to get him and Wallis out of France before it falls to the Nazi's and he is arguing about which member of the BRF is going to greet them, etc.

So yes to me he is a horrible man. Not horrible in sense of a murder or Adolf Hitler but horrible and selfish nonetheless.

And not to be rude, but I think you don't have an understanding of Edward's relationship or whatever you want to call it (relationship is too strong of a word) with Hitler. While he certainly wasn't in Oswald Moseley, his going to Nazi Germany wasn't a wise move. First of all, the British government didn't want him to go, and this was before the war started, and the atrocities started and became well known. The British government (not his brother, not his mother) didn't want him to go and he went anyway. That says it all to me. All about Edward.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #816  
Old 08-01-2011, 07:20 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
Yes, Edward shook Hitler's hand, that automatically makes him Hitler's butt boy from start to finish. I am sick of discussing this with people who will hate Edward and always believe the worst about him. You want to believe he would willingly send Jews to their deaths in the concentration camps, then be my guest. I am done debating this with people.
As for Charles being allowed to marry Camilla only because of society, I find it very ironic that the British public were on Edward's yet he was still forced to abdicate; so why didn't society work in that situation? Elizabeth lived during the fiasco's of Edward III, Princess Margaret and Peter, and later the divorce of her 3 children. I am a firm believer that all of these events, and those she loved around her being refused the right to marry whom they loved did influence her and even Charles as well. He knows what happened to his great uncle and his aunt, and instead of choosing to do what they did, he stood his ground and wouldn't give in to pressure.
But again, if you are unwilling to give David any sort of consolation or credit for anything good, then we really will just have to agree to disagree.
__________________
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
  #817  
Old 08-01-2011, 07:30 PM
XeniaCasaraghi's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: 1729 Noneofyourbusiness Drive, United States
Posts: 2,349
Bundtrock, you mentioned that you have admiration for those who give up their lives and happiness for the good of others yet see the side of the Duke of Windsor. I completely agree which is why I respect yet at the same time want to smack almost everyone involved, Bertie, David, Wallis, and Elizabeth.Edward was selfish but admirable and courageous, George was loyal (actually to both sides because he tried to stand up for his brother) and even more courageous than Edward. Elizabeth was closeminded and old school, but also loyal and loving and strong. Wallis was independent, a woman ahead of her time (ala Anne Boleyn), a little selfish (but she did try to prevent Edward from abdicating) but also loyal to the man she loved.
I admire all four parties for their decisions and think it worked out the best for everyone.
As for this Nazi nonsense, I have read of many aristocratic peoples who either liked or admired Hitler prior to 1939 so I don't blame Edward for falling into the trap like many other rich white men. As to what was going on during and after the war is still open to debate and I find is usually defined by how people feel about Edward and Wallis personally. I have even read recently that Wallis was a German spy for crying out loud!
__________________
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
  #818  
Old 08-01-2011, 07:31 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi View Post
Yes, Edward shook Hitler's hand, that automatically makes him Hitler's butt boy from start to finish. I am sick of discussing this with people who will hate Edward and always believe the worst about him. You want to believe he would willingly send Jews to their deaths in the concentration camps, then be my guest. I am done debating this with people.
As for Charles being allowed to marry Camilla only because of society, I find it very ironic that the British public were on Edward's yet he was still forced to abdicate; so why didn't society work in that situation? Elizabeth lived during the fiasco's of Edward III, Princess Margaret and Peter, and later the divorce of her 3 children. I am a firm believer that all of these events, and those she loved around her being refused the right to marry whom they loved did influence her and even Charles as well. He knows what happened to his great uncle and his aunt, and instead of choosing to do what they did, he stood his ground and wouldn't give in to pressure.
But again, if you are unwilling to give David any sort of consolation or credit for anything good, then we really will just have to agree to disagree.
Have you ever read a biography about Edward? Not a pro or anti book about him but one that shared his positive and negative qualities?

I am not sure what you mean by society? At first the upper classes supported and loved Wallis and David. It could have been because he was the Top Dog but they did. They didn't turn on them until it became apparent that he was determined to make Wallis Queen. Someone said (trying to find the actual quote) but here is a paraphrase: The upper classes don't like her because she is an American and the lower classes don't like her because she has two husbands living.

Some key points from Wikipedia (sometimes information from Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt but this is pretty accurate:

  • Although the pre-war British media remained deferential to the monarchy, and no stories of the affair were reported in the domestic press, foreign media widely reported their relationship.
  • The monarch of the United Kingdom is Supreme Governor of the Church of England—at the time of the proposed marriage, and until 2002, the Church of England did not permit the re-marriage of divorced people who had living ex-spouses. So you really can't compare the situation of Charles and Camilla with David and Wallis. Until 9 years ago, Charles couldn't have married Camilla in the church ----unless he did an Anne (who remarried in the Church of Scotland)
  • Furthermore, the British and Dominion governments felt that Wallis, as a two-time divorcée, was politically, socially and morally unsuitable as a prospective consort.[She was perceived by many in the British Empire as a woman of "limitless ambition",who was pursuing the King because of his wealth and position.
  • In November, the King consulted with the Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, on a way to marry Wallis and keep the throne. The King suggested a morganatic marriage, where the King would remain King but Wallis would not be Queen, but this was rejected by Baldwin and the Prime Ministers of Australia and South Africa.[ If the King were to marry Wallis against Baldwin's advice, the Government would be required to resign, causing a constitutional crisis.
If you read biographies on Edward and Wallis, its pretty much the same thing repeated. And this is also written by private secretaries, people who knew them via their social circle, etc. Its not us just hating on Edward.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #819  
Old 08-01-2011, 07:40 PM
Midwestern Mom's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Smalltown, United States
Posts: 133
Ya'll have to remember too, that Both Edward and Wallis were Nazi sympathizers/supporters. There was alot going on during their time together.

MM
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #820  
Old 08-02-2011, 02:41 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
I'm not certain that Edward ever developed emotionally and intellectually beyond the stage of prepubescence, that in his eyes, his needs came before all else-including his Country-and would throw his toys out of the pram when those needs were denied.
__________________

__________________
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 haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia 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 olympic games olympics ottoman poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess margriet 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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:25 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]