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
 
  #821  
Old 08-02-2011, 04:16 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midwestern Mom View Post
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
Don't think I'll remember something that might not be true.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #822  
Old 08-02-2011, 06:49 AM
Midwestern Mom's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Smalltown, United States
Posts: 133
Check out some documentaries about Edward...there's video and pictures supporting that. Even doing some online research will probably verify it as well.

It's not exactly hidden information.

MM
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #823  
Old 08-02-2011, 07:59 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,124
I have, I have researched this in depth as it was part of my History A-Level, I still don't believe it.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #824  
Old 08-02-2011, 08:15 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I have, I have researched this in depth as it was part of my History A-Level, I still don't believe it.

What don't you believe?

That he saw Hitler - no question.

That he supported the Nazi approach to the problems of the country in the 1930s - again no question - he said as much a number of times.

That he said he would agree to being a puppet of Hitler - probably - there is evidence in Germany of them having contact with him on this issue but there isn't any definitive evidence that he agreed but would the Germans have been reporting privately amongst themselves this idea - not publicly or for propaganda but in diaries?

That he still supported many Nazi ideals during the 1940s - again from his own words - definitely.

A-Levels are a good level of study but hardly in depth (I use A-level texts for my Year 12 students but need to supplement them as they are rather just an introduction to the topics I teach in Year 12 here).

Having studied this time period in depth at Masters level I have studied it in rather more depth than you have and I have no doubts that the man was a Nazi sympathiser throughout and a borderline traitor to Britain in 1940. If any other officer had acted as he did in 1940 they would probably have faced a court martial for desertion in the face of the enemy (which I think still meant the death penalty in the British army in 1940).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #825  
Old 08-02-2011, 08:17 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
In the 1930s it would have been perfectly permissable-however distasteful we find it now-for the ruling classes to hold racist views. Some of them may have made money through the slavetrade, mines or cotton mills where conditions were hellish and employees were treated like human detritus. When Hitler first came to power he pulled Germany out of the mire. Building homes, creating jobs, he was responsible for a network of fine, new roads-I won't go into his agenda because at the time it was unknown-Germany had a new pride in itself. Then, so what, if he wants rid of a few undesirables? The aristocracy, let alone Edward whose aunts, uncles and cousins were German, probably wouldn't even have turned a blind eye, at that time they would probably have supported what he was doing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #826  
Old 08-02-2011, 08:29 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsaritsa View Post
In the 1930s it would have been perfectly permissable-however distasteful we find it now-for the ruling classes to hold racist views. Some of them may have made money through the slavetrade, mines or cotton mills where conditions were hellish and employees were treated like human detritus. When Hitler first came to power he pulled Germany out of the mire. Building homes, creating jobs, he was responsible for a network of fine, new roads-I won't go into his agenda because at the time it was unknown-Germany had a new pride in itself. Then, so what, if he wants rid of a few undesirables? The aristocracy, let alone Edward whose aunts, uncles and cousins were German, probably wouldn't even have turned a blind eye, at that time they would probably have supported what he was doing.

Whenever people get on their high horses about the Jews I always think about the ship of Jews that sailed the world and was denied entry to Britain, the US and Australia amongst other countries that supposedly had less racist views. The Australian foreign Minister said something along the lines of 'why should be take their problems?' - which sums up much of the world's attitude to the Jews at the time - they were Germany's problem - let them deal with them. Horrible - yes but typical of the times.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #827  
Old 08-02-2011, 02:20 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
I think its fair to say that Edwards infatuation/love/dependence on Wallis made him blind to the realities of the situation he was in. Had he any real understanding of the constitutional powers/limitations of the monarch he would never have allowed the situation to get out of control as it did. He would have known that Wallis could never be more than the Kings mistress. He should certainly have known that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England could not marry a woman who had 2 ex husband still living. Wallis, as an American, probably never really understood that the king reigned but did not rule. It was a case of putting personal desires before duty to naton and family. That was his failing.

Also he was pretty lax in performing his duty as monarch, cancelling engagements to be with Wallis, failing to read his boxes and leaving state papers around for others to read. Not really understanding that the monarch acts on the advice of the government not the other way around.
It is said that Wallis did the nation a great favor when Edward abdicated to be with her and that is likely true. Edwards actions post abdication (visit to Nazi Germany, failing to leave Paris when ordered to, running off to Spain/Portugal, money dealings, lifelong arguments over her HRH etc) provide ample evidence that he had poor judgement.
I think he was emotionally dependent on her for the rest of his life. From what I have read their life together was fairly empty, they had little to talk about, but she realized she could never leave him after what he had given up for her. If she was hated after the abdication, could you imagine what it would have been like if they had later divorced? He would have been a broken man and she would have been the most hated woman in the world.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #828  
Old 08-02-2011, 02:44 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 902
He certainly should have known...

Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
(snip)... Had he any real understanding of the constitutional powers/limitations of the monarch he would never have allowed the situation to get out of control as it did. He would have known that Wallis could never be more than the Kings mistress. He should certainly have known that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England could not marry a woman who had 2 ex husband still living.... (snip)
.... Not really understanding that the monarch acts on the advice of the government not the other way around.
(snip)
But why didn't he have this understanding? He had been the heir for about 40 years. He had the benefits of staff and counselors, and his own father was surely engaged with his education as a future King. I just can't believe he didn't know these things. He just assumed that because he had been an immensely popular POW he would be able to have his way with the government and the people. Didn't work out that way.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #829  
Old 08-02-2011, 03:39 PM
Bundtrock's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Irving, United States
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
But why didn't he have this understanding? He had been the heir for about 40 years. He had the benefits of staff and counselors, and his own father was surely engaged with his education as a future King. I just can't believe he didn't know these things. He just assumed that because he had been an immensely popular POW he would be able to have his way with the government and the people. Didn't work out that way.
Perhaps it was not something that was brought up or discussed with him, why would it be?

What I find very puzzling is the mixed morality and standards for the Royal family. It is perfectly acceptable for members of the Royal family to have mistresses, lovers, while they are married or not, but it is a huge No-No for divorce? The UK, even in the 1930s did not have draconian divorce laws, so the people's representatives in Parliament evidently approved of simple divorce and remarriage, they allowed it by law?

The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, "Protector of THE faith," yet the UK claims and did claim with pride in the 1930s to be a diverse culture with tolerance and acceptance of differences?

I will state, since my moniker distinctly shows that I am American, I KNOW MY OWN COUNTRY is guilty OF THE SAME THINGS, I am not throwing stones at my British friends here on this board or elsewhere.
__________________
Camilla Bundtrock
Reply With Quote
  #830  
Old 08-02-2011, 03:55 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bundtrock View Post
Perhaps it was not something that was brought up or discussed with him, why would it be?

What I find very puzzling is the mixed morality and standards for the Royal family. It is perfectly acceptable for members of the Royal family to have mistresses, lovers, while they are married or not, but it is a huge No-No for divorce? The UK, even in the 1930s did not have draconian divorce laws, so the people's representatives in Parliament evidently approved of simple divorce and remarriage, they allowed it by law?

The Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, "Protector of THE faith," yet the UK claims and did claim with pride in the 1930s to be a diverse culture with tolerance and acceptance of differences?

I will state, since my moniker distinctly shows that I am American, I KNOW MY OWN COUNTRY is guilty OF THE SAME THINGS, I am not throwing stones at my British friends here on this board or elsewhere.
My dear Bundtrock,

But you are looking at the events of the 1930s through a prism fashioned in 2011. The King (or Queen) is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and the Church forbade divorce. As the head of the church, the King could have mistresses (although not all people would have been in favor of this, or even liked it) but the idea of marrying a twice-divorced woman would be totally unacceptable. You are understandably confusing morality with Church law and while it may appear hypocritical, it is just the way it was. Mistress, tolerated; divorcee, never! As some Englishman reputedly said, "We can't have some bloke going around saying he slept with the Queen of England."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #831  
Old 08-02-2011, 04:33 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
In addition, during this time divorced people (men and women) were not allowed to be received at Court. Some exceptions were made, however, you had to prove that the person being received at Court was the injured party. So when Wallis was presented at Court (while still marred to Simpson) she had to prove that Spencer had done her wrong (i.e. the reasons for the divorce being his fault). Divorce was something that happened but it wasn't looked on like it is today.

Heck, even in the States, I remember it being a deal (not a big deal but something that was discussed) that Ronald Reagan was the 1st divorced American President. And this was the 1980's.

I do agree that some people are judging the the time period of the 1930's by the same attitudes as of now. Even during the crowning of George VI, there was concern about the event being on the radio because people would listen to it in pubs and not take off their hats. This sounds ridiculous to us today but that back than it was a serious concern.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #832  
Old 08-02-2011, 04:41 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
In addition, during this time divorced people (men and women) were not allowed to be received at Court. Some exceptions were made, however, you had to prove that the person being received at Court was the injured party. So when Wallis was presented at Court (while still marred to Simpson) she had to prove that Spencer had done her wrong (i.e. the reasons for the divorce being his fault). Divorce was something that happened but it wasn't looked on like it is today.

Heck, even in the States, I remember it being a deal (not a big deal but something that was discussed) that Ronald Reagan was the 1st divorced American President. And this was the 1980's.

I do agree that some people are judging the the time period of the 1930's by the same attitudes as of now. Even during the crowning of George VI, there was concern about the event being on the radio because people would listen to it in pubs and not take off their hats. This sounds ridiculous to us today but that back than it was a serious concern.
There was also discussion about Gerald Ford being the first president to marry a divorced woman!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #833  
Old 08-02-2011, 04:47 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
Exactly! I forgot Betty Ford was divorced.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #834  
Old 08-02-2011, 05:14 PM
Bundtrock's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Irving, United States
Posts: 46
Thank you Vasillisos Markos and Zonk for your excellent clarifications, I really hadn't considered the time period carefully enough.

Then I would think that HM Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother truly did step out of her traditional cultural comfort zone in the mid 1960s and did in fact plow new ground when she warmly greet HRH The Duke of Windsor with a cheek kiss in public while accompanied by his wife, the Duchess of Windsor at the plaque dedication for his mother, Queen Mary.
__________________
Camilla Bundtrock
Reply With Quote
  #835  
Old 08-02-2011, 05:29 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
Well, the Queen Mother did like the Duke when he was Prince of Wales. He used to come over to their home, play with the Princesses etc. The Yorks used to socialize with them at the Fort, they liked Thelma Furness, etc. He was close to Bertie --- not as close as he was when they were children and as David aged he became closer to the Duke of Kent due to similar interests, but Elizabeth did like him.. So her kissing him isn't a surprise.

Unfortunately for the Duchess of Windsor, Elizabeth never warmed to her (rightly or wrongly). In general I like the Queen Mother, but she was a bit of a snob ---- its all about knowing your place. She liked Thelma, who was David's mistress but had no aspirations to be anything other than that to David. If Wallis had known her place (or if David had shown her the correct way to act) things might have been different. Wallis was an American, she didn't have an inkling to the way that the English behaved as it relates to social classes. They thought she was forward for wearing a color that stood out at the Kent engagement party, how she allowed David to introduce her to his parents and family, how she took it upon herself to act as hostess at Balmoral, etc. She didn't know her place.

Like I said in the past...I think Wallis took a lot of the blame for some of the things that David did. David was brought up in the system, he knew how they thought and operated ---- he should have helped her out a bit. Some of the nastiness and negative feelings could have been avoided IMO.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #836  
Old 08-02-2011, 06:55 PM
Midwestern Mom's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Smalltown, United States
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I have, I have researched this in depth as it was part of my History A-Level, I still don't believe it.

Well I don't know about your research but I know the documentary I saw was very clear. There are numerous pictures of them with Nazis, video and still photos.

You can deny it if you like but it's still a fact.


MM
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #837  
Old 08-03-2011, 06:39 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,124
I don't think he was any worse than the other upper class/polticians who believed in what Hitler was doing. I'll take the researched work of my History professor as my knowledge.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #838  
Old 08-03-2011, 09:26 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: colchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 194
Whilst I can't speak for others, I think it likely that they are saying, as I, that Edward was no different in his mindset, from others of his class. The difference lays in that those others were not seen to be on "easy terms" with the man who was responsible for the murder of all those he deemed "undesirable" and with whom we went to war.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #839  
Old 08-03-2011, 09:39 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsaritsa View Post
Whilst I can't speak for others, I think it likely that they are saying, as I, that Edward was no different in his mindset, from others of his class. The difference lays in that those others were not seen to be on "easy terms" with the man who was responsible for the murder of all those he deemed "undesirable" and with whom we went to war.
Exactly!

Okay....Edward like most of his kind (by this I mean his age and social status) supported the concept of Hitler in the beginning (i.e. Facism), shared similar anti Semitic feelings (which I can't support) and didn't want another world war (I believe the horrors of the first World War confirmed Edward's belief that appeasement towards Hitler was the only way that another war could be avoided). You have all of that and you might think that he got a bad rap as he wasn't the only person to have a picture taken with Hitler or have taken a meeting with him pre WWII. I am not even going to take into consideration all the treacherous things he is alleged to have done during WWII. So I am going to (for the purpose of this post) give him a bye: we all make mistakes in judgement. You acknowledge your error, consider the proof of why you were wrong and move on.

But IMO, its very telling that YEARS after the war he says "I never thought Hitler was such a bad chap". He said this in the 1960's. Years after the world knew about the concentration camps, the deaths of the Jews, Gypsies, and other undesirables (as coined by the Nazi's).

All those people died (in the camps, in the bombs, casualities of war) and that's all you have to say about the man? That pretty much says it all IMO.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #840  
Old 08-03-2011, 11:04 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi,

The Duke should have added "in the beginning" to his 60's statement and then I'd agree with him.
"I don't think Hitler was such a bad chap in the beginning"......
OR -
"In the beginning I never tho8ught Hitler was such a bad chap"....

Now of course, I think Hitler was one of the worst monsters ever known to man...
I find it incomprehensible that the Duke couldn't come to that same conclusion in the 60's.
Was the man that stupid?

Larry
__________________

__________________
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
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav 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 felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet 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 visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:48 AM.

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]