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

[Osipi]

I agree that David should have done the right thing and with abdication, handed over the private residences that pass from monarch to monarch in the family to Bertie. It was David's choice not to remain as the monarch but yet he sure felt that the private residences passed to him as he became monarch were his eh?

I'm just happy that Bertie had the monies and the smarts to buy these residences back to remain within the royal family. Should David had held onto them, who knows who would own them and be living in them now. Any guesses? I don't remember reading anything about who David and Wallis' heirs were.

 

[Pranter]

I don't think they had any heirs except their families since neither had children. Although I'd guess that they had private bequests for some things.


LaRae

 

[Skippyboo]

The Pasteur Institute was the main beneficiary of the Duchess's estate

http://www.nytimes.com/1986/05/02/w...n=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collection


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Did the Duchess have any Warfield relatives residing in the United States of America?

 

[Curryong]

I remember reading, I can't remember where, perhaps Madame Suzanne Blum's memoirs of the Windsors, that in the Duchess's widowhood and old age Earl Mountbatten would apparently visit her quite a lot. (This was of course before she got dementia.)

At first she welcomed chatting about life in the old days but it seems that gradually talk would turn to what would happen to the Duke's of Windsor's possessions of historical interest which he had taken from Windsor etc (such as robes, personal awards and Orders etc) and the Duchess agreed that they should be returned.

Later conversations turned to her will, and to money bequests, and to her jewellery, much of it given to her by Edward at the time when he was Prince of Wales and King in the 1930's. (Perhaps some pieces had been made from older jewellery in the Royal vaults? Also I believe Queen Mary left her son some jewellery from her own collection.)

It seemed Mountbatten talked with a great deal of pleasure about his great-nephew. Perhaps the inference was that the next King would love items of such provenance.

Mountbatten must have pressed too hard however, as eventually Wallis wrote to him stating that the conversations they'd been having about her demise and who she was going to leave things to depressed her and she would rather not speak of it with him any more. So that was the end of Mountbatten's attempt to get those jewels back in Royal hands, though I believe some were returned anyway.

 

[Mermaid1962]

Some of the jewels were supposed to have gone to Princess Michael of Kent.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I believe Marina of Kent and later Alexandra and Prince Michael of Kent did keep regular contact with the Duke and Duchess, and during the 1960's they visited them. When Prince Michael married Marie-Christine he took her to see Wallis while they were on their honeymoon. The Duchess was charmed by her and gave wedding gifts including an absolutely fabulous ruby brooch and cabochon diamond earrings from her collection. I believe these items were known 1930s pieces and Marie-Christine had to be a bit careful about wearing them at family get-togethers in the presence of the Queen Mother. She also left pieces of jewellery to other members of the Kent family including Alexandra as a Thankyou for their kindness to her.

Madame Blum, it was alleged, isolated the Duchess from many old friends, including her previously ever-present pugs. Much later on, items from the mansion and jewellery collection were sold, it was said without permission.

An independent assessment had valued Sandringham and Balmoral at £25,000. The new King couldn't pay outright and negotiations stretched until 1939 and the outbreak of war. The rather convoluted yearlyl 'party-plan' to pay for Balmoral and Sandringham (which had begun in wartime with tax free War Bonds plus a top up by King George) was continued by the present Queen on a reduced scale, via a yearly allowance to the elderly widowed Duchess, until in 1980 the Queen assumed responsibility for all the by then senile and bed-ridden Duchess's household and medical expenses. These were considerable by that time as she required 24/7 nursing.

 

[Queen Claude]

I firmly believe that the right thing happened when Edward abdicated but I don't think that the Yorks were as hapless as some may think. Edward not inviting the Archbishop of Canterbury to Balmoral was a slight against the Archbishop, but the Yorks then inviting him to Birkhall could be seen as a slight against the King.


IMO Edward was shady for pleading poverty and not disclosing that he had accumulated wealth as the Duke of Cornwall, but I don't think that he was unreasonable to want to be compensated for turning over Balmoral and Sandringham to his brother. Also even though Edward inherited Balmoral and Sandringham, George V did not bequeath any of his personal fortune to Edward but he did leave money/assets to Bertie/George VI and presumably his other children.

 

[Ish]

Leaving money/assets to the younger children but not the heir is actually fairly common within the BRF.

The heir automatically gets a lot - in fact the vast majority of everything goes to the heir. Sandringham and Balmoral, the palaces and castles, the royal collection, the income from the Duchy of Lancaster, even possibly still the income from the Duchy of Cornwall (which Edward would have kept as King, having no son).

 

[Queen Claude]

Upon Edward's abdication George VI in effect became the eldest son, and, except Balmoral and Sandringham, all the titles, assets and income streams noted transferred to George VI upon him becoming King-Emperor, and on top of that he had still had his "younger child" inheritance from his father.

 

[Ish]

But lacking a crystal ball, there is no way George V could have anticipated that Edward VIII would give up his inheritance like that.

 

[Pranter]

I think his father was aware something would happen, little he could do about it ahead of time. He famously said Edward would ruin himself within a year of his (George's) death. And he did.


LaRae

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Did Queen Alexandra leave any finances to Edward VIII?

 

[Curryong]

I don't think Alexandra left money to her children and grandchildren. Those were days long before trust funds etc. She herself had a generous yearly allowance as the widow of a King Emperor, but I certainly don't think she had millions to leave. As a Princess of Denmark before her marriage, Alexandra had little money of her own.

She did however have objects de art like the fabulous Faberge eggs her sister and brother in law had gifted her over many years, and wonderful jewellery. I know she left some jewels including an emerald necklace to Edward (David) for the use of his wife, whom she naturally assumed would one day be Queen. I don't know whether some of the pieces she left were converted to Wallis's use or not.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Prince Edward, Prince of Wales met United States Army Major Generals.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEoKNk-lRBE

 

[Lady Nimue]

Duke of Windsor had a love child with a Parisian seamstress – and paid to keep her silence, new book claims

This sounds credible to me. The pictures alone are suggestive.

Don't forget the money and paying the school fees at a private boarding school and continuing to pay the child for over 50 years.

Without ever using the term 'father' the acknowledgement was understood locally that the child was Edward's and that he was ensuring she was supported without being allowed to call him 'Dad'.

If Edward hadn't slept with the mother why would he pay for the next 50+ years?

Fascinating story. I believe it.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

This was an era long before the Welfare State. Royals and aristocrats often promised to pay for the education of children of their faithful servants, or give a pension or a grace and favour house to retired staff and the like. Or simply give support to widowers of tennants living on their estate whose husbands have been killed on the battlefields in France, in 1914-1918.

The fact that a royal person has supported someone for a longer time is immediately sensationalized by the Daily Mail and that sort of media. The fact that the person has always been undercover and that nothing from the millions of the late Duke of Windsor was claimed by his alleged offspring says enough.

The title (The Man Who Should Be King) already reveals the nonsense. An extramarital royal child (in old times we called this a bastard child) never is in line of succession and never can become a royal successor.

 

[Blog Real]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVZ6W5S-EMo

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I liked the interaction of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor with the royal family. In Technicolor:

https://youtu.be/roZyok-oTBU

 

[Nico]

I liked the interaction of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor with the royal family. In Technicolor:

https://youtu.be/roZyok-oTBU

And not even a curtsey for "Cookie" ...

 

[Dee Anna]

Never-before-seen photographs of Edward VIII's wedding to Wallis Simpson taken on a 'rogue' camera by one of the nine guests go on sale for £6,000* | Daily Mail Online

Looking at them, while Wallis smiles happily, David looks bemused or lost in thought whilst trying to maintain "the smile for the camera."

Then again, he had a lot to think about.

 

[Dee Anna]

An assumption rather than a fact.

Being a largely ornamental role, other than appearing here and there, prehaps reading out a few carefully penned words, there is very little to it other than displaying the social etiquette he grew up with.

Politics and contentious issues are off the agenda ..... I don't know that David would have been any worse than any who went before him.

 

[MARG]

An assumption rather than a fact.

Being a largely ornamental role, other than appearing here and there, prehaps reading out a few carefully penned words, there is very little to it other than displaying the social etiquette he grew up with.

Politics and contentious issues are off the agenda ..... I don't know that David would have been any worse than any who went before him.

I very much doubt QEII has spent the last sixty odd years reading out "a few carefully penned words". She, like monarchs before her, is the big gun used in that slippery and treacherous world of diplomacy.

The hosting of Heads of State at BP, and Windsor, the State Dinners, I shudder to think what would have happened with a King who didn't know the meaning of the word "diplomacy" and couldn't be bothered to read his boxes!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...] a King who didn't know the meaning of the word "diplomacy" and couldn't be bothered to read his boxes!

You think Queen Elizabeth II reads her boxes?

The Motor Vehicles Regulations 2016. The Value Added Tax Relief Order 2016. The Acces To Medical Treatments Innovation Act 2016. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. The Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2016.

Yes, Her Majesty has read them all..., those piles of regulations.



A constitutional monarch simply goes to the dot line where he/she has to sign. After all there is a whole machinery behind him/her which ensures that every Act, Decree, Order, Warrant, letter, whatever has gone to all required steps before the Royal Assent is given.

When King Edward VIII did not read the red boxes, he had a 100% realistic view on his constitutional role: just sign.

 

[muriel]

You think Queen Elizabeth II reads her boxes?

The Motor Vehicles Regulations 2016. The Value Added Tax Relief Order 2016. The Acces To Medical Treatments Innovation Act 2016. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. The Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2016.

Yes, Her Majesty has read them all..., those piles of regulations.



A constitutional monarch simply goes to the dot line where he/she has to sign. After all there is a whole machinery behind him/her which ensures that every Act, Decree, Order, Warrant, letter, whatever has gone to all required steps before the Royal Assent is given.

When King Edward VIII did not read the red boxes, he had a 100% realistic view on his constitutional role: just sign.

I have no doubt HM reads her red boxes.

Her boxes contain all that the government wants her to read. They do not contain every piece of legislation is full, but will contain summaries of the key provisions.

In addition to legislation, the boxes also contain briefing materials on various aspects of government: from financial matters, social policy, hiomeland security matters, foreign affairs, defence and security etc etc.

 

[Lee-Z]

You think Queen Elizabeth II reads her boxes?

The Motor Vehicles Regulations 2016. The Value Added Tax Relief Order 2016. The Acces To Medical Treatments Innovation Act 2016. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. The Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2016.

Yes, Her Majesty has read them all..., those piles of regulations.



A constitutional monarch simply goes to the dot line where he/she has to sign. After all there is a whole machinery behind him/her which ensures that every Act, Decree, Order, Warrant, letter, whatever has gone to all required steps before the Royal Assent is given.

When King Edward VIII did not read the red boxes, he had a 100% realistic view on his constitutional role: just sign.

When you first joined these forums (yes, I remember it well) you're favorite queen was Q.Beatrix of the NL, who is known for being very involved in all matters put in front of her and certainly wasn't one to just sign and look pretty (to quote some of your other posts).
You tended to ridicule other monarchs (like QEII) when they did things differently than Q.Beatrix.

Does your post above mean that you have come to the conclusion that Q.Beatrix did things wrong after all?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

When you first joined these forums (yes, I remember it well) you're favorite queen was Q.Beatrix of the NL, who is known for being very involved in all matters put in front of her and certainly wasn't one to just sign and look pretty (to quote some of your other posts).
You tended to ridicule other monarchs (like QEII) when they did things differently than Q.Beatrix.

Does your post above mean that you have come to the conclusion that Q.Beatrix did things wrong after all?

I have not claimed anyone doing wrong. I claim that Queen Elizabeth II does not read her red boxes. For the simple fact that only 24 hours go into a day. Reading everything in one red box is more than a full 24 hours. And the Queen gets several red boxes a week. Make your own calculation...

So when the blame is that Edward VIII did not read his red boxes: he was completely right and very wise to do so. It is an utter waste of time to read things one has to sign anyway, whether one agrees or disagrees with it. Think alone of the endless list of Birthday Honours or the appointment of an extra load of Peers into the cramped House of Lords. Really, it is just scratch, scratch and there it is: 'Edward R' (or 'Elizabeth R'). Next document.

Of course we may assume that the King -and it will not be different to his niece Elizabeth II- took care in his personal correspondance, that he indeed did read when it was about his finances or about appointments in the Household.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I have no doubt HM reads her red boxes.

Her boxes contain all that the government wants her to read. They do not contain every piece of legislation is full, but will contain summaries of the key provisions.

In addition to legislation, the boxes also contain briefing materials on various aspects of government: from financial matters, social policy, hiomeland security matters, foreign affairs, defence and security etc etc.

With all respect. The list with Acts, Decrees, Orders in Council, Statutory Rules and Statutory Instruments is endless, endless and endless. I am sure that neither King Edward nor his niece Queen Elizabeth read any of these documents and (did) trust completely on the competence of the departments that all what is laid in the red boxes can be provided the Royal Assent indeed.

I have taken the effort to look it up for you. On April 23rd this year the current Queen, a niece of Edward VIII, signed the following (just an outtake):
An Act to make provision about improved access to finance for businesses and individuals;
An Act to make provision about regulatory provisions relating to business and certain voluntary and community bodies;
An Act to make provision about the exercise of procurement functions by certain public authorities;
An Act to make provision for the creation of a Pubs Code and Adjudicator for the regulation of dealings by pub-owning businesses with their tied pub tenants;
An Act to make provision about the regulation of the provision of childcare;
An Act to make provision about information relating to the evaluation of education;
An Act to make provision about the regulation of companies;
An Act to make provision about company filing requirements;
An Act to make provision about the disqualification from appointments relating to companies;
An Act to make provision about insolvency;
An Act to make provision about the law relating to employment; and for connected purposes.



You really, really believe that Her Majesty has read one page of any of these Acts? Dream on. It is also physically impossible because she simply would run out of time when she would really read all of these documents.

 

[Mbruno]

You think Queen Elizabeth II reads her boxes?

The Motor Vehicles Regulations 2016. The Value Added Tax Relief Order 2016. The Acces To Medical Treatments Innovation Act 2016. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. The Criminal Cases Review Commission Act 2016.

Yes, Her Majesty has read them all..., those piles of regulations.


.

In the old footage below (from the 1990s I believe), the Queen refers to her boxes and claims to be "a quick reader".

https://youtu.be/ZDd7I8V38e8?t=28

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Sometimes I have to replace a colleague in the company and then I have to go with the documents' book to the director. It is a thick map, sometimes three maps have to be signed in one session. Every tab is a document which needs a signature. Every tab has a 'guiding note' attached to it with a paperclip. The director almost signs every document 'blind', completely trusting on the signed initals in that 'guiding note', meaning that the organization has completed all underlying steps in the procedure.

Scratch.
Next.
Scratch.
Next. Oh, a well-wishing card.
Scratch.
Next.
Scratch.
Next.
Etc.

I am sure it is no different for the CEO of United Kingdom Ltd.