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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
A King's Story

They have already made a movie about Dukes of Windsor?

A King's Story, a documentary from 1965, is based on the Duke of Windsor's autobiography* of the same name.

* (or perhaps just his memoirs)
 
It's extraordinary how much Edward was worshipped and adored, and how let down British people were by his actions in 1936.

As far as Wallis's looks are concerned there was, of course, no photoshop in those days, but there was plenty of airbrushing out of physical flaws. Fashionable photographers would remove inches from the waistline of their clients, double chins, wrinkles, bags under the eyes, and, in Wallis's case a huge mole she had near her mouth. She had lovely eyes and was a very witty and lively person but at no stage was she pretty, IMO.

I believe that photo dates from when she was presented at Court in the early 1930's. She's wearing the obligatory Prince of Wales feathers headdress.
 
Last edited:
A photo album detailing the Duke of Windsor's trip to Nazi Germany in 1937 is to be sold at auction.

It was compiled and captioned by Edward's sole equerry, Sir Dudley Forwood, and has been in his family ever since.

The album features pictures - many of them previously unseen - of the former king meeting top ranking Nazis, including Adolf Hitler.

More than 60 pictures detail the official visits the Duke went on with his new wife Wallis Simpson, who had been the cause of the abdication crisis the previous year.
Read more: Photo album showing Duke of Windsor's trip to Nazi Germany to be auctioned - BT
 
i liked finding this blog article on the residence of the duke and duchess of windsor in paris, which seems to be located at 24 Boulevard Suchet. the residence is an elegant hotel particulier which belonged back then to the city of paris, now to Mohamed Al Fayed. the furniture and art of their house was donated at the end of wallis' life to museums of paris.

it's such a beautiful property.

http://haute.decoration.over-blog.c...-de-windsor-au-bois-de-boulogne-75509641.html
 
... That portrait of the Duchess of Windsor was auctioned after her death.
It is now with the National Portrait Gallery. The NPG bought it in 1998. Does anyone remember anything about the intervening owners?
Here BTW is the artist, Brockhurst, working on the portrait. http://images.npg.org.uk/264_325/7/1/mw249071.jpg
 
Wallis Simpson/Duchess of Windsor paid a heavy price for falling in love with a future King. So much garbage has been thrown at her; when she was alive and many years after her death. Spreading rumors about her sex is pretty low.
 
Last edited:
Wallis Simpson/Duchess of Windsor paid a heavy price for falling in love with a future King. So much garbage has been thrown at her; when she was alive and many years after her death. Spreading rumors about her sex is pretty low.

Of all the many things I have read about the Duchess, they have agreed on one thing. She liked a good gossip session.
So do I, but I also know what goes around come around.
 
Of all the many things I have read about the Duchess, they have agreed on one thing. She liked a good gossip session.
So do I, but I also know what goes around come around.

You can't compare her treatment to gossip. This lady has been trashed in countless ways for decades. We all know it's due to the King's abdication. She is blamed for coming along and stealing a King away from a throne and sacred duty.

Wallis wasn't a great beauty, that's clear, but to call the woman a man is beyond low.

The late King/Duke of Windsor had his faults and short comings, Lord knows. I just wonder if anyone will ever be fair and realize part of the reason why he threw away his throne and duty to the empire is because of the treatment he recieved from those same people.

The Crises of 1936 isn't just Edward and Wallis's fault, just saying.
 
Wallis Simpson

:sad:On 25/4/2016 I tried to post the following comment on the article about Wallis Simpson at:

On This Day: Wallis, Duchess of Windsor Passes Away | The Royal Forums

Unfortunately, the comment did not seem to be published so I thought I would post it here in case it is of interest:

Wallis Simpson was, in law, ‘Her Royal Highness’ from the moment of her marriage to Edward. The matter is fully explained:

https://www.academia.edu/17178874/Wallis_Simpson_-_A_real_princess

Basically, Edward was an HRH from birth and remained so, as the son of a monarch, even after his abdication (he could not renounce the fact that he was his father’s son), and Wallis Simpson took the rank, title and style of her husband under the Common Law. George VI had no power to over-rule the Common Law. Only an Act of Parliament could have deprived Edward (and thus Wallis) of his rank, title and style of HRH – and there was no such Act.

Strangely enough, the editors of Wikipedia will not even permit a mention of the fact that there is even a debate on the issue. The words on her gravestone are wrong and should be corrected.
 
The fount of all honours in the UK is the monarch. As there was a debate about whether or not Edward even retained the HRH style after his abdication (it was eventually decided that he was still an HRH) it was perfectly within the King's remit to decide that as Edward had basically renounced his rights in so many ways - and had himself suggested a morganatic marriage he was going to have such a marriage.

It is also being talked about for the next reign - that the wife of the King won't be Queen.

As the headstone was approved by the present Queen and she knows the ins and outs of titles I will stick with her decision and that Wallis was denied the HRH (had they pushed the issue it is highly possible that legislation would have been passed - to even strip Edward - and that itself was discussed - that the legislation would be that as he had abdicated he gave up all rights to the HRH styling as well - hence the compromise - she didn't get it but he did).
 
I don't think you can have read the linked paper. The King could use the royal prerogative to deprive Edward of his title of HRH, but what he could not do was to deprive Wallis of the title of HRH if Edward was an HRH - because, under the Common Law, which the monarch cannot override, Wallis took the rank, title and style of her husband. So, since Edward was undeniably an HRH from birth and did not (and could not) renounce that title, Wallis took the title HRH on her marriage to him. If you read the paper, you will see that the experts agree on this. PS The monarch is most definitely not the fount of all honour in this country. It's an interesting story but a long one.
 
I don't think you can have read the linked paper. The King could use the royal prerogative to deprive Edward of his title of HRH, but what he could not do was to deprive Wallis of the title of HRH if Edward was an HRH - because, under the Common Law, which the monarch cannot override, Wallis took the rank, title and style of her husband. So, since Edward was undeniably an HRH from birth and did not (and could not) renounce that title, Wallis took the title HRH on her marriage to him. If you read the paper, you will see that the experts agree on this. PS The monarch is most definitely not the fount of all honour in this country. It's an interesting story but a long one.

My compliments for your well-written and insightful post. I agree with you. Like under common law the spouse of a titled person can be addressed by her husband's title, this principle did count for Wallis like it counts for Marie-Christine Freiin von Reibnitz. But of course there is a difference in theory and practice.
 
Thank you for your reply. You say that 'a titled person can be addresses by her husband's title' but I am talking about the law; that is, what Wallis' title was IN LAW. There may be a difference between law and practice but that fact that practice (what is done) differs from the law (what is legal) does not alter the law.
 
The title couldn't be stopped - hence she was Duchess.

The style was stopped - and it was discussed about passing legislation (my great-uncle was in the government at the time and attended many of the relevant meetings - that is my source - many of those discussions were not recorded officially however) - and styles are the preserve of the monarch.

I don't need to 'read the linked papers' as I have studied and written on this topic (it was the basis of my Honours thesis for my BA at university in the 1970s using my great-uncles letters and correspondence as the basis of that thesis given his position.

The decision made by the government was that it was down to the King to decide - if he felt legislation was necessary to deprive her of the title but as the ruling from the relevant people at the time (as now with the Wessex children) is that all that is needed is for the monarch's will to be made known then that was all that was needed.

Common Law is not 'law' in a legislation sense but a body of practice developed through precedent. The King used a new precedent and Elizabeth has followed that precedence with the Wessex children and even with Camilla.
 
It was also a matter of social custom. If the King (and the Queen) made it known throughout Society that Wallis was not to be addressed as an HRH then who would have disobeyed? Certainly many of those people who were invited to Government House in the Bahamas years didn't, even if it did put them in a very awkward position sometimes.

I just get the feeling from everything that I have read that the animus towards Wallis as an adventuress and gold digger among members of the BRF was such that if King George had been told that she was indeed an HRH and nothing could be done short of legislation stripping Edward of his HRH, then that's what would have happened, sad though many members of the family would have been.

After everything that had happened the thought that 'that woman' was going to be curtsied to and fawned on as a royal person would have been sheer anathema to most Britons at the time and therefore they would have backed whatever it took to bring her down.
 
Edward VIII/The Duke of Windsor's behavior supports that Wallis did not automatically became HRH upon marrying Edward. He was reportedly devastated that his brother George VI did not grant her the HRH styling and even shed tears over it, and then continued to lobby his brother and others like Winston Churchill regarding the matter during wartime no less.
 
The title couldn't be stopped - hence she was Duchess.

The style was stopped - and it was discussed about passing legislation (my great-uncle was in the government at the time and attended many of the relevant meetings - that is my source - many of those discussions were not recorded officially however) - and styles are the preserve of the monarch.

I don't need to 'read the linked papers' as I have studied and written on this topic (it was the basis of my Honours thesis for my BA at university in the 1970s using my great-uncles letters and correspondence as the basis of that thesis given his position.

The decision made by the government was that it was down to the King to decide - if he felt legislation was necessary to deprive her of the title but as the ruling from the relevant people at the time (as now with the Wessex children) is that all that is needed is for the monarch's will to be made known then that was all that was needed.

Common Law is not 'law' in a legislation sense but a body of practice developed through precedent. The King used a new precedent and Elizabeth has followed that precedence with the Wessex children and even with Camilla.
Iluvbertie, did they discuss validity of Edward's civil marriage?

This question was raised in 2005 before prince Charles' marriage.
From wikipedia:
The royal family was specifically excluded from the Marriage Act 1836, which instituted civil marriages in England. However, Prince Charles's civil marriage raised questions. Lord Falconer of Thoroton told the House of Lords that the 1836 Act had been repealed by the Marriage Act 1949, which had different wording, and that the British Government were satisfied that it was lawful for the couple to marry by a civil ceremony in accordance with Part III of the 1949 Act, and the Registrar General Len Cook determined that a civil marriage would in fact be valid. Any doubt as to the interpretation of the Marriage Act 1949 was put to rest by the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires that legislation be interpreted in conformity with convention rights wherever possible (including the right to marry, without discrimination).

Thus it looks like Edward's marriage (took place before the Marriage Act 1949) wasn't valid in England.
 
Those long Empire tours undertaken in the 1920's probably were a bit of a strain. However, a collection of letters to Freda Dudley Ward that were published years ago show Edward as a man very much given to self pity and whining about his family, duties, officials he met, his travelling, position as heir, the fact he often felt 'useless' etc, etc. Quite frankly, I don't think he ever really wanted to be King and from the days of his early manhood he was looking for an 'out', IMO.
 
Although photographs of the cruise and short articles about the destinations did appear in British newspapers, sparking shock that a British King would walk around half-naked, (bare-chested) Wallis Sinpson still wasn't mentioned, except as one of the guests.

It wasn't until the Bishop of Bradford made an observation towards the end of the year about 'the King's grace' that all hell broke loose. The Bishop didn't know about Wallis and was just referring to Edward's irregular church going, but the Establishment and Press thought he was speaking about the affair. It was then that the Press broke ranks and the population knew for the first time what their monarch had been up to.

Edward may have been popular with the working class people of Britain but the middle classes weren't too keen on having a Queen Wallis, and neither were working class women. When the scandal broke, her the window glass in her house was smashed and she had to flee abroad for her own safety.

I fail to see what is underdog about an extremely privileged, spoiled and entitled man (nothing humble about David) and the mistress he absolutely smothered with expensive jewellery and assured would be Queen.
 
I'm glad he was pleased. However, all though it's hard to know to whom the writer of this article is referring in this instance, (not unusual with the Daily Fail) it's wrong to state that none of the future Edward VIII's cousins were British. What about the progeny of Louise, George V's eldest sister, who married the Duke of Fife?
 
Those long Empire tours undertaken in the 1920's probably were a bit of a strain. However, a collection of letters to Freda Dudley Ward that were published years ago show Edward as a man very much given to self pity and whining about his family, duties, officials he met, his travelling, position as heir, the fact he often felt 'useless' etc, etc. Quite frankly, I don't think he ever really wanted to be King and from the days of his early manhood he was looking for an 'out', IMO.
I wouldn't say that. I think that he did do the job pretty well as POW, worked hard and did a fairly good job in public. If he complained in private, well we all do about our jobs. but I don't think he seriously contemplated leaving the RF. I think it was a combination of actually becoming King and realising that he was now "king for life", ha the whole role laid out for him etc. which happened around the same time he'd fallen in love with Mrs S. and been advised that she wasn't a sutiable bride, for him.. that pushed him to want to leav...
 
It was also a matter of social custom. If the King (and the Queen) made it known throughout Society that Wallis was not to be addressed as an HRH then who would have disobeyed? Certainly many of those people who were invited to Government House in the Bahamas years didn't, even if it did put them in a very awkward position sometimes.

I
After everything that had happened the thought that 'that woman' was going to be curtsied to and fawned on as a royal person would have been sheer anathema to most Britons at the time and therefore they would have backed whatever it took to bring her down.
I agree. I think that certainly the force of social custom and what the King said was likely to be obeyed... and IF Wallis' 3rd marriage had not lasted, like the first 2, if she had had an HRH that could not be taken from her, or had at least been hers, I can see that the RF and people feared she would go on calling herself HRH, and gone through café society with maybe a 4th Husband Count Somebody and calling herself HRH Countess Somebody and exacting curtsies etc from people.. At the time, it would have seemed pretty awful and degrading the titles of the UK...
I tink that yes George VI got so fed up with His brother that he would have done what he felt was needed to make sure that didn't happen, even if it meant legislation to strip David of HIS HRH
Sorry if this is a bit OT, I hadn't seen the post about the titles? If it should go elsewhere please move it?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom